Syamasundar Nakka
Senior Civil Judge
Huzurnagar, ADJ Court Complex · Suryapet · Telangana
Based on 9 recent ordersSyamasundar Nakka, Senior Civil Judge, is posted at Huzurnagar, ADJ Court Complex, Suryapet, Telangana, India. 9 court orders on record since 2026. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles H, OS, SC cases.
Featured Judgments
Page 1 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT HUZURNAGAR
PRESENT: Sri. N. SYAMASUNDAR
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR.
(Wednesday, this the 06th day of May, 2026)
O.S.No. 09 OF 2025
(Old O.S.No. 131 of 2014 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar) BETWEEN:
Mamidi Rammallu, Son of Late Gurvaiah, Aged 50 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Huzurnagar Town Mandal, Nalgonda District.
… PLAINTIFF A N D
1. Oruganti Bharathi alias Bharathamma, w/o Late Peda Sithaiah, aged 60 years, Occupation Household,
2. Oruganti Rama Rao, Son of Late Peda Sithaiah, Aged 35 years,Occupation Business,
Both resident of H.No. 1-53, Indira Chouk, Huzurnagar Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District … DEFENDANTS @@@
This suit is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri N. Satyanarayana, Counsel for the plaintiff and of
Sri. T.Hanumantha rao Counsel for the defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:-
:: JUDGMENT ::
1.This is a suit filed for perpetual injunction against the defendants.
Page 2 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014
2.The brief facts of the plaint are:- 2.1 The defendant No. 2 is the son of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of an extent of 50 Square of site out of Sy. No. 192/A (including the shed which was constructed by the plaintiff) situated within the revenue limits of Huzurnagar Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District hereinafter referred as suit schedule property and explained in detailed in the suit schedule annexed hereunder. The plaintiff paternal uncle by name Mamidi Durgaiah, son of Late Choudaiah, resident of Huzurnagar Village and Mandal, nalgonda District has gifted the suit schedule property through a registered gift deed bearing No.644/2000 dated 26-04-2000 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Huzurnagar. A certified copy of the said registered gift deed is herewith filed as document No. 1 for the kind perusal of the Honorable Court. From the date of gift the plaintiff is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property open to the knowledge of all including the defendants. Later the plaintiff has obtained permission from the Gram Panchayath,
Huzurnagar for construction of room (shed) in the suit schedule property in the year 2002. The zerox copy of permission issued by the Gram Panchayath, Huzurnagar to the plaintiff is herewith filed as document No. 2 for the kind perusal of the Honorable Court. All the above documents clearly shows that the plaintiff is the owner, possessor and pattadar of the plaint schedule property.
Page 3 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014 2.2 From the date of gift settlement deed, the plaintiff is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property open to the knowledge of all including the defendant. On the other hand the defendants have no right, title or interest whatsoever over the suit schedule property and they are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. With an evil intention to grab the suit schedule property of the plaintiff, the defendants are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.
2.3 About one week back at about 10-00 A.M., when the plaintiff is in the suit schedule property, Suddenly both the defendants who have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, entered upon the suit schedule property and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. But however the plaintiff could restrained the defendants and sent them away from the suit schedule property with great difficulty. On that the defendants went away from the suit schedule property proclaiming that they will disposes the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and occupy the same by force, As such the plaintiff is still apprehending danger from the defendant to his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff being an innocent person and cannot restrain
Page 4 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014 the defendants, who are having numerous and the backing of anti social elements in the Village, without the help of the Honorable
Court, Hence the suit.
3. Having received summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement. The brief averments of written statement are as under:
3.1 The defendants submitted that the plaintiff is never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property at any point of time much less as on the date of filing of the suit. The defendant
No. 1 filed a suit O.S.No. 156/2006 on the file of Hon'ble Junior Civil
Judge Court at Huzurnagar for declaration of title, recovery of
possession and for mesne profits against this plaintiff and another namely Oruganti Swarajyalaxmi @Laxmi and the plaintiff herein and another contested the suit. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to passed decree and judgment in favour of the defendant No.1 herein dated.31.07.2010 on merits. The plaintiff filed the Gift Settlement
Deed No.644/2000, dated.26.04.2000 on the file of Sub-Registrar,
Huzurnagar in O.S.No. 156/2006 which is filed in the above suit and on which he relied and filed under the list of documents. This Hon'ble
Court was pleased to framed the issue No.5 reading that whether the
Gift. Deed No.644/2000, dated.26.04.2000 executed by Mamidi
Durgaiah in favour of this plaintiff in the above suit is true and valid?
and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to discussed the above said Gift
Page 5 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014
Settlement Deed and did not taken into consideration as it is a fake document and created for the purpose of the case.
3.2 The defendants submitted that the defend No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of 130 sq.yds. including the extent of above suit schedule property. The plaintiff and her mother-in-law Oruganj
Ramanasrasamma, W/o Ramalah and her co-sister Oruganti
Swarajyalaxmi laxmi, W/o China Seethaiah purchased an extent of 13 cents of house site from one Kalvakolanu Tharakamma, W/o
Ramanadham, R/o Huzurnagar through a Regd. Sale Deed, dated.04.05.1968. Thereafter in the year 1971 a residential house was constructed in the said house site leaving open place towards
North and South of the house to the extent of 20 yards width on
Northern side and 11 yards width on Southern side and the
Grampanchyat Huzurnagar was accorded permission on 26.03.1971 for construction of the above said house. Again an extent of 450 sq.yds. towards south of the said house and open place was purchased from late K. Tharakamma in the year 1970 by the above said three persons through an agreement of sale, but the same was not registered for want of funds. Since then the plaintiff, her mother- in-law Ramanarsamma and her co-sister Swarajyalaxmi Laxmi were in possession and enjoyment of 1100 sq.yds. of house site. That later plaintiff's mother-in-law Ramanarsamma purchased an extent of 300 sq.yds. from Karaturi Sreerama Murthy through a Registered Sale
Page 6 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014
Deed dated. 12.07.1977 situated on Eastern side of the site already purchased from K. Tharakamma. The boundaries mentioned in the sale deed, dated. 12.07.1977 goes to show that there is no land or house site towards North of the house site belong to the defendant
No. 1, Ramanarsamma and Swarajyalaxmi @ Laxmi, but it is only a road existing towards North of the said site. The mother-in-law of defendant No.1 Ramanarsamma died in the year 1980 and as per her instructions and as per her last wish, the defendant No.1 and her family began living in the Southern portion of the said house and
Swarajyalaxmi @ Laxmi and her family are living in the Northern portion of the said house.
3.3 The defendants submitted that after the death of
Ramanarsamma, the defendant No.1 and her co-sister Swarajyalaxmi @ Laxmi orally partitioned the said house as well as open site purchased and the open site adjoining the house. An extent of 700 sq.yds. of house site including the house each to the defendant No.1 and her co-sister Swarajyalaxmi @ Laxmi was allotted in the said partition. The defendant No.1 was given the open site existing on the
Southern side of her house and an extent of 130 sq-yds. including the above suit schedule property extent on the Northern side abutting to the Gramanchayat Road extending upto the compound wall of the house V. Narayana Reddy on the east. After partition the defendant No.1 got erected three temporary sheds on the Northern
Page 7 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014 part of her site abutting to the Grampanchayt road and gave the same on rent to the Mechanics of Autos and Motor Cycles since the year 1998 and the defendant No.1 has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same.
3.4 The defendants submitted that the paternal uncle of the plaintiff namely Mamidi Durgaiah sold away the an extent of Ac2- 20gts in Sy.No.191 and Ac0-35cts in Sy.No.192/A of Huzurnagar
Revenue Village, through Regd. Sale Deed, dt.27.07.1965 to
Pendyala Kotilingam, 5/0 Narayana and Punugupati Mahalaxmamma w/o Venkatramaiah. Later Pendyala Kotilingam got the land in Sy.No.
192/A of Huzurnagar Revenue Village towards his share and he constructed a Petrol Bunk in the said land which is still in existence.
Thus there is no land left in Sy. No. 192 of Huzurnagar Revenue
Village since the year 1965. After the Petrol Bunk Bunk was constructed a road was laid in between the site of P.Kotilingam and the land of K.Tharakamma. That even the Regd. Sale Deed executed by Mamidi Durgalah the Southern boundary is shown as the land of
K. Ramanadham husband of K. Tharakamma, who sold away the house site to the defendant No.1 and others. Even the Sale Deed dt.
04.05.1968 executed by late K.Tharakamma the Northern boundary is shown as the land belong to p. Kotilingam. Thus it is clear that there is no vacant land in between the site purchased by the defendant No.1 and others and the site belong to P. Kotilingam. That
Page 8 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014 while the matter stood thus, the plaintiff got fabricated a Registered.
Gift Deed No.644/2000, dated. 26.04.2000 to an extent of 50 sg.yds.
out of Sy.No.192/A of Huzurnagar Revenue Village. It is submitted that the said Mamidi Durgaiah has no land in Sy.No. 192/A of
Huzurnagar Revenue Village as on the date of executing the alleged
Regd. Gift Deed No.644/2000, dated. 26.04.2000. Since the said
Mamidi Durgalah had already sold away his land in Sy.No.192/A of
Huzurnagar Revenue Village through a legd. Sale Deed way back on.27.07.1965 το P.Kotilingam and Others. Even if the Regd. Gift
Deed No.644/2000, dated. 26.04.2000 is true no rites will accrue to the plaintiff as Mamidi Durgaiah had no land in Sy.No. 192/A of
Huzurnagar Revenue Village as on the date of execution of the Regd.
Gift Deed No.644/2000, dated. 26.04.2000. The said document is a fake document and created one for the purpose of knocking away the land of the defendant No.1 who is an old aged lady. That when the plaintiff tried to trespass into the site of plaintiff including the above suit schedule property extent, the defendant No.1 filed
No.78/2002 for permanent injunction, but the counsel for defendant
No.1 made mistakes in drafting the suit such as extent purchased and description of property in the plaint schedule. As such the defendant No.1 filed I.A. No.776/2005 in O.S. No.78/2002 for withdrawal of the suit and seek permission to file fresh suit and the
Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the petition. Later the defendant
Page 9 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014
No.1 filed O.S.No. 156/2006 for declaration of title, for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the plaintiff and another before this Hon'ble Court and the said suit was decreed on merits, dated.31.07.2010 by this Hon'ble Court.
3.5 The defendants submitted that in the Villages and Towns the
Survey number in which the house sites were situated has no relevance except the boundaries, where the survey numbers do not tally the boundaries will prevail over survey number and simply because the executant has wrongly mentioned the survey number in the Registered Sale Deed, dated. 04.05.1968 no rights will accrue to the plaintiff as the boundaries are clearly mentioned in the sale deed. Further the defendant No.1 and her co-sister Swarajyalaxmi @
Laxmi have perfected their title to the house site purchased by being in continuous possession and enjoyment of the house site including the above suit schedule extent purchased by them from late K
Tharakamma since the year 1968 and 1970. It is submitted that the plaintiff applied for permission to construct shed in the suit schedule site before the Grampanchayat Huzurnagar, the defendant No.1 and the husband of Swarajyalaxmi @Laxmi filed objections. But the
Grampanchayat Huzurnagar without inspecting the site and for best reasons know to it, has issued permission to the plaintiff for constructing a shed in the above suit schedule extent. It is submitted that even before permission was granted to the plaintiff there are
Page 10 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014 temporary sheds were in existence. This fact is amply proved by the report of the Advocate Commissioner, dated. 17.12.2002 appointed as per the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in I.A. No.362/2002 in
O.S.No.78/2002 that there are three temporary sheds in an extent of
130 sq.yds. including the love suit schedule extent. As such the permission granted by the Grampanchajat Huzurnagar is per name sake and it is to be noted that the Grampanchayat Huzunagar gave permission to the plaintiff with an ulterior motive as no
Grampanchayat Huzurnagar expected to grant permission for construction on a site where already there are some constructions.
3.6. The defendants submitted that the plaintiff admitted in the cross examination that the sale deed, dated.27.07.1965 executed by
Mamidi Durgalan in favour of P.Kotilingam and another shows the
Southern boundary holder is shown as Kalvakolanu Ramanadham (husband of vendor of the plaintiff and others). Later on mutual understanding P. Kotilingam on one she and Mamidi Lingalah on otherside corrected their properties and boundaries resertively and this fact was elicited from P. Kotilingam who deposed as PW-3
O.S.No. 78/2002. As per the sale deed. dated.27.07.1965 which was
marked as A3 in O.S.No. 156/2006 that not even a suggestion was made to P.Kotilingam with regard to the correction of boundaries as mentioned by the plaintiff. Further said P. Kotilingam stated in his deposition as PW-3 in O.S.No. 78/2002 that the Southern boundary of
Page 11 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014 his land purchased from Mamidi Durgalah is K.Taharakamma vendor of the plaintiff and others). As such when Mamidi Durgalah has no land the Plaintiff cannot get any title under the Gift Deed
No.644/2000, dated.26.04.2000. further submitted that the plaintiff in his cross examination in O.S.No.156/2006 admitted that the said suit schedule boundaries are correct, but stated the the survey number is wrong and the plaintiff further admitted the extent at suit schedule property in O.S.No. 156/2006 is 130 sq.yds.
3.7. The defendants submitted that the above at is hit by 'Doctrine of Resjudicata' Since the subject matter of the above suit schedule extent was already decided by this Hon'ble Court in O.S.No156/2006 deciring that the defendant No.1 is the title holder to an extent of 130 sq.yds. including the above suit schedule extent and declared that the plaintiff is to be evicted and delivered the possession to the defendant No.1 from the schedule within (3) months from the date of passing of decree passed in O.S.No. 156/2006, dated.31.07.2010 on the file of this Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble Court further declared that the defendant No.1 is also entitled to collect mesne profits from the plaintiff from the date of filing of the suit till date of delivery of possession of the suit schedule to the defendant No.1, as such the above suit for the same subject matters not maintainable at law.
That basing on the decree passed in O.S.No. 156/2006, dated.31.07.2010 on the file of this Hon'ble Court, the defendant No.
Page 12 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014 1 filed E.P.No.11/2011 before this Hon'ble Court seeking the relief of delivery of possession and for mesne profits of the schedule property including the schedule shown under the suit O.S.No. 131/2014 on the file of this Hon'ble Court. The said E.P.No.21/2011 is pending before this Hon'ble Court for filing of Counter by the other side. In the meanwhile the plaintiff herein filed A.S. No.38/2010 before the Vth
Add District Judge (III) F.T.C. Nalgonda at Miryalaguda as appellant against the defendant No.1 and another and the said Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismisses the said appeal on.22.01.2013 confirming the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in O.S.No. 156/2006 on merits. Subsequently plaintiff herein filed 2nd Appeal S.A.No.
795/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. as appellant against the defendant No.1 and another and the said Hon'ble High Court of
A.P. was pleased to dismissed the said second appeal on 04.12.2013 on merits confirming the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Vth Addl.
District Judge Court Nalgonda at Miryalaguda in A.S. No.38/2010 It is
submitted that by suppressing the all facts by filing of appeals by the plaintiff before higher courts, the plaintiff filed the present sit on the same subject matter as the same was decided by the various
Hon'ble Courts squarely on merits as such the suit of the plaintiff is
not maintainable either at law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limini. The plaintiff did not come to the Hon'ble Court
Page 13 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014 with clean hands and thus the suit of the plaintiff it liable to be dismissed.
3.8 The defendants submitted that the boundaries mentioned in the above suit schedule are wrong. The above suit schedule and other extent of house site is total extent 130 sq.yds. situated at
Huzurnagar Revenue Village as mentioned by the defendant No.1 in
O.S.No. 156/2006 on the file of this Hon'ble Court is purely belongs
to the defendant No.1 herein and she is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendant No.1 filed original documents in O.S.No. 156/2006 and in E.P.No.21/2011 on the file of this Hon'ble Court. As such the defendants are reserving their right to summon the entire file of O.S.No. 156/2006 and E.P.No.21/2011 including the list documents on the file of this Hon'ble Court way of fling petitions before this Hon'ble Court during the course of trail of the case for better adjudication of the suit matter.
3.9 The defendants submitted that the Gift, Deed No. 644/2000, dated. 26.04.2000 filed by the plaintiff in the above suit was already filed in O.S.No. 156/2006 and the same was marked as EX-B18 and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to declared that the said document is invalid in the eye of law. As such the above suit filed by the plaintiff basing on the invalid document i.e., Gift Deed No.644/2000, dated.
26.04.2000 is not maintainable and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed in limini.
Page 14 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014 3.10. The Court Fee paid by the plaintiff is not correct and sufficient. The value of suit schedule property is more than Rs.13 lakhs and above as such this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.
3.11. The defendants submitted that the plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property at any point of time. The plaintiff instead of filing a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession by paying proper court fee, the plaintiff filed the above suit for the simple relief of Perpetual Injunction is not maintainable either at law or on facts and hence the above suit is liable to be dismissed in limini.
3.12 Hence, the defendants No.182 prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs, in the interest of justice. Else the defendants No. 1&2 will be put to irreparable loss and injustice. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. Originally, the above case was filed before the court of Junior
Civil Judge, Huzurnagar and numbered as O.S.No. 200 of 2018
and later, the above case was transferred to this court as per the orders of Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet received in Dis.No.2566/2024/A1, dated:25.10.2024 vide reference R.O.C. No. 7059/OP-Cell/2024, dt:24.10.2024 of the
Page 15 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014
Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and
same is renumbered as O.S.No. 165 of 2025.
5. On the basis of above rival pleadings, the court of Junior Civil
Judge, Huzurnagar framed the following issues for trial.
1. Whether the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on date of filing of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
6. To substantiate the claim of Plaintiff, Plaintiff no.1 himself filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination by reiterating the contents of his plaint and examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1.
The evidence of One Karne Narsaiah was eschewed.
7. On the other hand, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf. Hence, defendants side evidence was closed.
8. Heard learned counsel for plaintiff and the hearing on behalf of defendants was treated as heard.
9. Issues No. 1 & 2:- 9.1 The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction against the defendants. Since the claim of the plaintiff is that he is in
Page 16 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014 lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands, the burden is lies on the plaintiff to prove that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the date of filing suit and that the defendants without having any right interfered with such possession, as such he is entitled for the relief of Permanent injunction as prayed for against the defendants. It is well settled proposition of Law that the Plaintiff has to stand on the evidence let in by him and that he cannot take the advantage of weaknesses of the defendant’s case.
9.2 The chief Examination Affidavit is a replica of the plaint contents.
9.3 The Cross Examination of PW1 is reproduced here under
for the sake of clarity:
“I filed the suit as there is a dispute form Oruganti Bharathi and
Oruganti Rama Rao regarding house in the last week of June, 2014. It is not true that defendant filed a suit O.S.No. 78/2002 on the file of this Court against me and one Voruganti Swarajya Laxmi. It is true that in the said suit O.S. No. 78/2002, the boundaries of suit schedule property is East: Usthela Narayana Reddy House, West: R & B Road from Huzurnagar to Kodad, North. Gramapanchayath road,
Huzurnagar, South: V. Swarajya Laxmi house. Witness adds that the said property is in Sy.No.193. It is true that I filed my written statement and counter in O.S No.78/2002. It is true in the said suit,
Page 17 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014
K. Saidulu, learned Advocate, is appointed as Advocate- commissioner vide I.A.No.362/2002 and upon notice, I and D-1 along with Swarajya Laxmi, Advocate-commissioner and Mandal Surveyor visited the suit schedule land in O.S.No. 78/2002 and accordingly, report was also filed and is accepted by the Court. At that time, I submitted some documents l.e., Permission letter, Registered document to the Advocate-commissioner. It is not true to say that the boundaries in the O.S.No.78/2002 and the permission letter aforesaid mentioned are different boundaries. It is true that after withdrawal of O.S.No. 78/2002 through I.A. No.776/2005, the defendant No.1 in the present suit filed another suit O.S.No.
156/2006 on the file of this Court. I filed counter and written statement in O.S.No.156/2006 also. It is true I filed Ex.P.1 on record in the present case also filed in O.S.No.156/2006 by way of petition and is marked as Ex.B. 18 in O.S.No. 156/2006 on the file of this
Court. It is true I deposed evidence in O.S.No. 156/2006.
In my evidence in O.S.No.156/2006, when I was confronted by the learned counsel with my chief affidavit in O.S.No.156/2006, it is my signature and my signature is also present in my cross examination, conducted on 16.09.2009 and 07.10.2009. It is not true to suggest that I deposed in my evidence that the boundaries mentioned in
O.S.No.156/2006andAdvocate-commissionerreportin
O.S.NO.78/2002 are same. It is not true to suggest that the
Page 18 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014 boundaries in the permission letter with the Advocate-commissioner report in O.S.No. 78/2002 are salte. The defendant in the present suit filed the Advocate-commissioner report pertains to O.S.No. 78/2002 as an exhibit A.6 in O.S.No. 156/200% It is not true to suggest that in the Advocate-commissioner report there are two petty shops with three rooms. It is true in O.S.No.156/2006, the schedule property is 130 square yards. Witness adds that out of 130 sq. yards, 50 sq.
yards is registered and remaining belongs to me. O.S.No. 156/2006, the boundaries mentioned in the schedule property by me as deposed East: House of Vusthela Narayana Reddy, West: R & B Road,
North: Gramapanchayath road of Huzurnagar, South: Oruganti
Chinna Seethaiah house. It is true the boundary to the north boundary is CC Road. Witness adds that the boundaries are mentioned for registered property and unregistered property separately.
It is true that I deposed in O.S.No.156/2006 that Mamidi Durgalah sold an extent of Ac.0-10 gts., in Sy.No.192 and Ac.2-03 gts., in
Sy.No.191 to Pendyala Kotilingam and P. Mahalaxmamma W/o.
Venkataramaiah. It is true that the above referred Ac.0-10 gts., and
Ac.2-03 gts., pertains to Durgalah were acquired towards his share from his agnates Mamidi Veeralah, Mamidi Lingaiah, Mamidi
Choudaiah, Mamidi Tirupaiah. It is not true to suggest that land sold to Pendyala Kotilingam was now Petrol Bunk. It is true that I deposed
Page 19 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014 in O.S.No.156/2006 that the sald Petrol Bunk owner is Pendyala
Kotilingam. It is not true to suggest that I deposed that the southern boundary of Pendyala Kotilingan Petrol Bunk belongs to Kalvakolanu
Ramanadham and Tharakamma. It is not true to suggest that
Mechanic shops, Welding shops as mentioned in the Advocate- commissioner report are present in the suit schedule land of O.S.No.
156/2006.
It is true that the registered document pertaining to 50 sq. yards
I.e., Ex.B.18 in O.S.No.156/2006 and Ex.A.1 in O.S.No.131/2014 are same. Witness adds that I am not sure whether it is marked as
Ex.B.18, but I filed the document in O.S.No. 156/2006,
The boundaries in the present suit schedule land are East: My property, West: Huzurnagar-Kodad road, South: Orugantu Chinna
Seethalah house, North: Grampanchayath road Huzurnagar. It is true
Mamidi Durgalah has signed on Ex.A.1. Mamidi Venkateshwarlu,
Maqbul Masthri are attestors to Ex.A.1. The suit schedule land is in
Sy. No. 192/A. It is true to suggest that I have not mentioned
about the subject matter of 0.S.No.78/2002 and
O.S.No.156/2006 in my pleadings of this suit.
It is true that a suit O.S.No. 156/2006 was decreed in
favour of defendant No.1 Oruganti Bharathamma in this suit.
It is true that within three months, the suit schedule
property in O.S.No.156/2006, is to be vacated and handed
Page 20 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014 over to the plaintiff in O.S.No. 156/2006. Witness further adds that my property pertains to Sy.No.192 and 1 have dispute over
Sy.No.192 and the property mentioned as schedule property in
O.S.No.156/2006 pertains to Sy.No.193. It is not true to suggest that
because I failed to vacate the suit schedule property in
O.S.No.156/2006, an E.P. No.21/2011 is filed against me by the
Decree Holder in O.S.No. 156/2006. I contested in E.P. NO.21/2011 for the reasons mentioned in that record. It is true I preferred an
Appeal A.S.No.38/2010 on the file of Hon'ble ADJ Court, Miryalaguda, from the Decree in O.S.No.156/2006 and the same is dismissed on 22.01.2013 and I preferred second appeal to the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., vide Appeal No.795/2013 and the same is dismissed on 04.12.2013.
The fact of filing appeal i.e., A.S.No.38/2010 is not
mentioned in my present pleadings of O.S.No.131/2014. The
fact of filing second appeal in O.S.No.156/2006 is also not
mentioned in my present pleadings of O.S.No.131/2014. It is
not true to suggest that the present suit schedule land is not
part of the property decreed in O.S.No. 156/2006.
I got the present suit schedule land from Mamidi Durgaiah by way of Gift in the year, 2000, vide Ex.A.1. It is not true to suggest that the said Mamidi Durgalah already died before 10 years on the date of execution of Ex.A.1 in my favour. I do not know exactly when
Page 21 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014
Mamidi Durgalah died, I did not file any Death Certificate of
Mamidi Durgaiah in O.S.No.156/2006 or O.S. No.78/2002. It is not true to suggest that I on in personation took some other person as Mamidi Durgalah and fabricated Ex.A.1. I cannot say exactly or approximately at least in years l.e., when Mamidi Durgalah died from the date of execution of Ex.A.1. I do not know whether Mamidi
Durgalah sold the property mentioned in Ex.A.1 in the year, 1965 to some third persons as deposed in O.S.No. 156/2006. It is not true to suggest that the said Durgalah has no title over the land mentioned in Ex.A.1 at the time of it's execution. Witness adds that Durgalah has another land even today also. It is true that I have not deposed any other land in the name of Durgalah other than Ac.n-10 gts., in
SY,NO.192 and Ac.2-03 gts., in Sy. No.191 of Huzurnagar. Witness adds that as the learned counsel not asked me about the said fact. I did not depose. It is not true to suggest that 130 sq. yards including 50 sq. yards i.e. the present suit schedule land is in the possession or title of defendant Oruganti Bharathamma. The 130 Sq.yards of my property is in single bit. It is true that I already mentioned my boundaries of 130 sq. yards in O.S.No.156/2006 as East: House of
Vusthela Narayana Reddy, West: R & B Road, North:
Gramapanchayath road, South: Voruganti Chirnina Seethalah house.
I filed the present suit as the defendants tried to interfere in my possession, hence, I approached this Court. It is not true to suggest
Page 22 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014 that the present suit is not maintainable since I have to file suit for declaration and for recovery of possession as the suit schedule property is in the possession of defendant No.1. It is not true to suggest that the court fee paid by me is not sufficient. It is not true to suggest that Ex.A-1 is a fabricated document and I filed the present suit basing on the said fabricated document.
It is not true to suggest that to illegally grab 50 Sq.yards from the suit schedule property in 0.5.156 of 2006 and so I filed the present suit basing on fabricated Ex.A-1 document. It is not true to suggest that Mamidi Durgalah has no schedule property in his name at the time of execution of Ex.A-1 and so, no property is legally transferred to me. I do not file any document in support of my contention to show that the schedule property is in the name of Mamidi Durgalah at the time of execution of Ex.A-1, similarly, I do not file any document in support of Mamidi Durgalah's title in O.S.156 of 2006 also.
It is not true to suggest that if really Mamidi Durgalah
has property in his name at the time of execution of Ex.A-1 I
would have file the same in O.S.156 of 2006 itself. It is not
true to suggest that the present Ex.A-1 already filed in
0.5.156 of 2006 which is marked as Ex.B-18 is declared as
fabricated document in the decree passed in O.S.156 of
2006.
Page 23 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014 (The C.C. of deposition of D-1 in O.S.156 of 2006 along with cross- examination of D-1 and commissioner report vide I.A.362 of 2002 in
O.S.78 of 2002 is marked as Ex.B-1 as it is confronted to PW-1
subject to objection raised by the counsel for plaintiff that the said documents are affidavits and also certified copies and so, could not be marked).
9.4 The plaintiff in his cross examination admitted that a suit
OS.No.156/2006 was decreed in favour of defendant No.1 namely
Oruganti Bharathamma in this suit. He further admitted that within three months, the suit schedule property in OS.No.156/2026 is to be vacated and handed over to the plaintiff In OS.No.156/2026. Plaintiff stated that the fact of filing appeal i.e., A.S.No.38/2010 is not mentioned in his present pleadings of O.S.No.131/2014. The fact of filing second appeal in O.S.No. 156/2006 is also not mentioned in his present pleadings of O.S.No.131/2014. Plaintiff denied the suggestion that the present suit schedule land is not part of the property decreed in O.S.No.156/2006.
9.5 Plaintiff stated that he do not know exactly when Mamidi
Durgaiah died. He did not file any Death Certificate of Mamidi
Durgaiah in O.S.No.156/2006 or O.S.No.78/2002. Plaintiff denied the suggest that really Mamidi Durgaiah has property in his name at the time of execution of Ex.A-1 he would have file the same in O.S.156 of 2006 itself. He further denied that the present Ex.A-1 already filed in
Page 24 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014
O.S.156 of 2006 which is marked as Ex.B-18 is declared as fabricated
document in the decree passed in O.S.156 of 2006.
Appreciation
10. From the pleadings of either side, the chief affidavit of PW1 and the documents marked on either side it is clearly evident that the plaintiff failed to mention about the earlier suits in his plaint. Plaintiff who got himself examined as PW1 clearly admitted that the earlier suit was decided against him and even the appeals filed by him went against him. Further the plaintiff also admitted in his cross examination that the suit schedule property is part of the suit schedule property in the suit decided earlier, though the plaintiff mention that the suit schedule property herein to be different in his chief affidavit. Earlier suit was for declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits. The present suit is with a prayer for simpliciter injunction. The early suit was decided in 2010 and the appeals were also decided before the present suit was instituted. But the plaintiff failed to mention about the early suits in his plaint and also in his chief affidavit which is confronted as Ex.B1. Though PW1 denied that
Ex.A1 which is the certified copy of gift deed through which he claims to have obtained title over suit schedule property. The earlier suit declared it is a fake document. He himself admitted that in the early suit the court declined the title that his claims. This observation gives strength to contention of the defendant that the plaintiff came
Page 25 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014 to the court with unclean hands. These observation is further corroborated by the admissions of the plaintiff/PW1 that he does not know remember when his donor passed away. Though the plaintiff actually denied that the donor in Ex.A1 passed away 10 years back prior to the alleged date of execution of Ex.A1,he could not mention the date of death of his donor.
11. From the discussion made above though the plaintiff claim possession over suit schedule property it is established that he does not have an actual possession as evident from his admission of the early suits and the execution petition. Title of the plaintiff is not established and this present suit is hit by resjudicata. In this circumstances the case goes against the cause of the plaintiff.
Issue No.3:
12. In view of the findings given on Issues No. 1 & 2 in favor of the
Plaintiff, the suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with out costs.
(Dictated to Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 06th day of May, 2026.)
Sd/-
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR.
Page 26 of 26 O.S. No. 09 of 2025 OLD OS. No. 131 of 2014
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined For Plaintiffs:
PW1 – Mamidi Ramamallu
For Defendants:
-NIL-
Exhibits marked For Plaintiffs:
Ex.A-1CC of Regd. Gift Deed bearing document No.644/2000
For Defendants:
Ex.B-1The C.C. of deposition of D-1 in O.S.156 of 2006 along with cross-examination of D-1 and commissioner report vide I.A.362 of 2002 in O.S.78 of 2002
Sd/-
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR.
Page 1 of 13 SC NO. 329 OF 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT HUZURNAGAR
PRESENT: N. SYAMASUNDAR,
Assistant Session Judge,
Huzurnagar.
SESSIONS CASE No.329 OF 2022
(Tuesday, the 19th day of May, 2026) ( P.R.C.No. 34/2015 on the file of the J.M.F.C., Huzurnagar, in Crime No. 137/2015 of P.S. Huzurnagar)
COMPLAINANT :The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Huzurnagar. ACCUSED:
Jillepally Prabhakar S/o Thirupaiah, age; 32 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Karakkayalagudem village of Huzurnagar Mandal.
Offences Charged :U/Sec. 307 of IPC.
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Court:Found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 307 of IPC
SENTENCE OR ORDER:
IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 307 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence under Sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C.
Prosecution conducted by : Sri. S. Venkateshwarlu, Addl.P.P. Accused is defended by :Sri. N. Satyanarayana, Advocate.
This case is coming before me for final hearing on 27.03.2025 in the presence of Sri. Siliveru Venkateshwarlu, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and of Sri. N. Satyanarayana, Learned counsel for accused and having perused the evidence adduced and exhibits marked and other material papers on record having heard both sides and stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:
A.S.J.
Page 2 of 13 SC NO. 329 OF 2022
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1)The Sub-Inspector of Police, Huzurnagar P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.137/2015 for the offences under Section 307 of IPC with the following allegations that :
2)The averments of the charge sheet in brief are as follows:
On 22.05.2015 2015 morning at 07:00 hours, PW1 came to Police
Station and lodged a Telugu written petition stating that, today i.e. on 22.05.2015 morning at about 05:30 hours his father Kasthala Venkataiah is proceeding on main road in their village to went to Barakathgudem village, meantime he reached near at their villager at accused house, when said accused developed the previous grudges and decided to kill his father and attacked on him with an axe and crowbar. The same is witnessed by PW7, immediately rushed to him and informed the same, immediately he along with his mother, & younger uncle PW5, where his father is fallen on the road in an unconscious state by having severe axe injuries to his head, right hand and left leg. Immediately they shifted the injured to Govt. Area
Hospital, where the duty medical officer observed and referred the injured to higher center as his condition is serious, on that they shifted him to
Khammam. Thus he requested to take legal action against the accused as per law.
2.1 Basing on the complaint lodged by the PW1, PW12/P. Veera
Raghavulu the then SI of Police, PS Huzurnagar registered a case in Cr.No.
A.S.J.
Page 3 of 13 SC NO. 329 OF 2022 137/2015 initially for the offence punishable U/s. 307 of IPC, issued FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, PW12 examined and recorded the statements of PW1 at police station.
Immediately he rushed to the scene of offence located at
Karakkayalagudem village, secured two mediators PW8 and 9 and in the presence conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized blood strained shirt from the scene under the cover of scene of offence panchanama and affixed our signatures thereon and also drew the rough sketch of the scene.
2.2 Later PW12 secured PW6, LW3/Macha Meramma, PW7, PW3, examined and recorded their statements. PW12 have also caused enquiries about the accused but he was found absconding. On the same day, PW12 visited Sparsha hospital, Khammam examined and recorded the statements of PW2, PW4 and PW5.
2.3 PW12 also filed requisition before the LW14/Sri.M.Sathish Kumar
Special Judicial Magistrate of I class (Prohibition& Excise) court, Khammam for recording the dying declaration of the injuried i.e., PW2. Accordingly
LW14 recorded the statement of PW2.
2.4 On 27.05.2015 PW12 arrested the accused at Karakkayalagudem village and secured panchas LW11/Kota Pullaiah and PW10 and on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed of committing the offence against the accused and seized one Iron rod from the possession of accused
A.S.J.
Page 4 of 13 SC NO. 329 OF 2022 under the cover of confession cum seizure panchanama and affixed our slips thereon. Later, after completing all the formalities of arrest PW12 produced him before the committal court for judicial custody.
2.5 After collecting wound certificate of PW2 from PW11 and after completion of investigation PW12 filed charge sheet against the accused persons. Hence the charge.
3)The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar took cognizance and registered case as PRC vide PRC No.34 of 2015 for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC against the accused of which,
Sec. 307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of Sessions. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar committed the case to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Nalgonda under Section 209 (a) of the
Criminal Procedure Code. The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions
Judge’s Court has registered the case and made over the case to Assistant
Sessions Judge’s Court, Huzurnagar on the point of jurisdiction for disposal
according to law.
4)On appearance of the accused before this Court, he was examined under section 228(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure and charge was framed for the offence under section 307 of IPC read over and explained to the accused in Telugu Language and when questioned, the accused, pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.
A.S.J.
Page 5 of 13 SC NO. 329 OF 2022
5)During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 documents and MOs1 and 2. Due to the death of LW3/Macha Meremma and LW11/Thota Pedda Pullaiah their evidences is closed.
6)After the closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him and when questioned, the accused denied the evidence and did not choose to examine any defence witness.
7)Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted arguments on behalf of the prosecution. He also mentions that the evidence produced by the prosecution clearly shows that the accused committed the offence and prays this court to punish the accused according to law.
8)On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused submits that except the injured/PW2 there are no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. There are several omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Police foisted false case against the accused person and in fact the accused did not commit any offence and without conducting proper investigation a false charge sheet is filed, therefore, prays this court to acquit the accused.
A.S.J.
Page 6 of 13 SC NO. 329 OF 2022
9) Now the point for determination is : - “Whether the prosecution succeeded in establishing its case against
Accused beyond all reasonable doubt that with an intention to see the end of
life of PW2, Accused armed with MO1 Iron Pipe and attacked PW2 on
22.05.2015 at Karakkayalagudem Village of Huzurnagar Mandal”?
Point :
10)This is the case of alleged attempt to murder committed by accused on PW2. A brief facts of the case are as mentioned supra. In this case as many as 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution of which PW1 to
PW7 are mentioned as circumstantial witnesses/injured/eye-witnesses.
PW8 to PW10 are the panch witnessesas arrayedby the police during their investigation. PW11 is the doctor who treated the injured/PW2 and issued wound certificates. PW12 is the investigation officer and PW13 is the
Hon’ble magistrate as on that date, who recorded the dying declaration
which remains to be a statement of the injured as he survived and takes the nature of Section 164 Cr.P.C statement. As many as 16 exhibits were marked as listed in the appendix of this judgment and two material objects were marked which are also listed in the appendix.
11)PW1 who is the youngest son of injured/PW2 deposed that his father was proceeding to go to Barakathgudem village on 22.05.2015 at 05:30 am and by the time he reached the house of the accused the accused attacked his father with a axe and crowbar. The accused axed on his head, hands and legs. PW1 also deposed that PW7 witnessed the said incident and rescued his father by pushing the accused aside. PW7 came to the house
A.S.J.
Page 7 of 13 SC NO. 329 OF 2022 and informed them. Basing on which he himself,his mother/PW4 and his junior paternal uncle/PW5 rushed to the place of incident where they found his father on the ground with bleeding injuries. It is evident that this witnesses is not eye witness along with PW4 and PW5. They immediately took the injured to Government Area Hospital, Huzurnagar where the doctors informed them that the condition is serious and they again immediately shifted him to Khammam hospital. Later at about 08:00 hours, PW1/complainant reported to the police which is marked as Ex.P1.
During the cross examination of PW1, he admitted that by the time he reached the place of incident there were 5 or 6 persons present there but he did not make any enquiries with the said persons about the occurance of the said incident and who did it. He also admitted that axe and crowbar were not found at the place of incident where as in Ex.P1 he mentioned that his father was attacked with axe and crowbar and he also deposed in his cross examination that his father was axed on head,legs and hands. It is also noteworthy that the witness deposed that there are small culvert
before entering Karakkayagudem from Chilkur to Bethavole main road,
near the said culvert there are pits and stones and the road was in rough condition. This witness also admitted that the accused is having only parents and wife and that they could have attacked the accused as he does not have large support.The witness also mentioned that there are no political disputes between PW5 and one Gottemukkala Nirmala who was former mandal parishad Chairperson but admitted that at the time of
A.S.J.
Page 8 of 13 SC NO. 329 OF 2022 alleged incident PW5,one Chinthakuntla Srinu and his family belong to one group and are followers of BRS party. Gottemukkala Nirmala, Dongari
Venkateshwarlu, Dongari Sathyanarayana and accused are followers of
Congress party. But he denied that there are political grudges between both the groups since the beginning. The witness mentioned that police came to the village, made enquiry with him at the village and also made enquiries with eye-witnesses in his presence at the village. At this juncture it is noteworthy that investigation officer/PW12 mentioned that he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 at police station and then rushed to the scene of offence securing the presence of mediators
PW8 and PW9, lacking corroboration.
12)PW2 who is the injured mentioned in his chief examination that his elder son and daughter-in-law pick up quarrel in the house and he admonished both of them. In the mean time the accused came and owing to previous disputes between him and the accused with regard to agriculture labour works, the accused thought that he was admonishing the accused and that might be the reason for attacking him. This witness mention that the accused who was holding a rod came upon him and attacked him with said rod on his head and immediately he lost his consciousness. He also mentioned that while the accused was beating him
PW6 who was present, left the place. This witness was confronted that
MO1 and his identified the same to the weapon that was used by the
A.S.J.
Page 9 of 13 SC NO. 329 OF 2022 accused to attack him. In fact MO1 is not a rod and it is a green color iron pipe. This witness mention that in the hospital at Khammam the doctors changed the clothes and his family members who took clothes handed over the blood strained shirt/MO2 to the police. At this juncture it is observed that PW12/investigation officer mentioned that he seized the blood strained shirt from the scene of offence in the presence of panch witnesses who affixed their signatures to MO2. Clearly corroboration is lacking.
13)PW4 who is the wife of PW2 and mother of PW1 is also not a eye witness deposed in lines of the chief examination of PW1 mentioned that police came to Huzurnagar hospital and examined PW1 and herself where their statement was recorded. This statement by PW4 it is not corroborating with the statements of PW1,PW2 and also with that of
PW12/Investigation officer.
14)PW3, PW6,PW7 who are said to be the eye-witnesses in this case turned hostile and nothing noteworthy to the case of the prosecution could be established. It is also to be observed that the panch witnesses for the scene of offence and rough sketch and also the panch witness for confession panchanama also turned hostile. The investigation done by the investigation officer goes into doubt as evidence of few of the witnesses was observed to be not corroborating and also the panch witnesses turned hostile. It could be a case of table investigation.
A.S.J.
Page 10 of 13 SC NO. 329 OF 2022
15)PW11/Doctor who examined the injured and issued wound certificates mentions that the injuries/wounds of PW2 could also be a result of accident that might happen on a bad fall from a speeding motor vehicle on a rough road. In this case injuries are truth but the cause of injury cannot be determined. Finally the dying declaration which is actual a statement by PW2 made to on Magistrate clearly shows that PW2 went to the house of One Nemmadi Aillaiah to fetch his son Nemmadi Ashok/PW6 for driving the two wheeler of PW2 and while they were returning to the house of PW2 and by the time both of them reached near the house of M.
Venkati, N. Jayamma, the accused and his wife came in the way of PW2 and PW6. PW2 mentions that the wife of the accused questioned himself as to why he orally abused the accused/her husband. While PW2 answered that he did not say any word against the accused, the accused attacked
PW2 with crowbar. The keen observation of this statement shows the wife of the accused is also present in the alleged scene of offence. But she is not made either as a eye-witness or co-accused. In fact this fact was omitted at the time of recording the statements of the witnesses or filing of charge sheet.
16) In this circumstances where the eye-witnesses and panch-witnesses turned hostile and where corroboration is lacking between the statements of different witnesses it could be easily concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused as alleged.
A.S.J.
Page 11 of 13 SC NO. 329 OF 2022
17)In view of my above discussion, the court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients for the offences charged against the accused persons. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.
18) IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.
307 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence under Sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 and MO2 case properties are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
(Dictated to stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this 19 th day of May, 2026.)
Sd/-
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
HUZURNAGAR
A.S.J.
Page 12 of 13 SC NO. 329 OF 2022
:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW1LW-1Kasthala NareshComplainant & Circumstantial Witness PW2LW-6Kasthala VenkataiahInjured and Eye-Witness PW3LW-5Nukapangu SaidammaEye-Witness PW4LW-7Kasthala NagammaWife of injured & Circumstantial witness PW5LW-8Kasthala RamaiahCircumstantial witness PW6LW-2Nemmadi AshokEye-Witness PW7LW-4Macha SatheeshEye-Witness PW8LW-9Siddala MalyadriPanch witness for scene of crime and Seizer panchanama PW9LW-10Pillutla VeeraiahPanch witness for scene of crime and Seizer panchanama PW10LW-12Pillutla RamaiahPanch witness for confession and Seizer panchanama PW11LW-13Dr.N.Ravi KumarTreated the injured and issued wound certificate PW12LW-15P.Veera RaghavuluIO,filed charge sheet PW13LW-14Sri.M. Satheesh KumarConducted the dying declaration of injured
FOR DEFENCE: -NIL-
:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P-1Report Ex.P-2Marked portion of Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-3 Ex.P-3Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-6 Ex.P-4Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-7 Ex.P-5Signature of PW8 in scene of offence panchanama Ex.P-6Signature of PW8 in rough sketch Ex.P-7Signature of PW9 in scene of offence panchanama Ex.P-8Signature of PW9 in rough sketch Ex.P-9Signature of PW10 in Confession cum recovery panchanama Ex.P-10Medical Requisition cum Wound Certificate Ex.P-11First Information Report Ex.P-12Scene of offence cum Seizure panchanama Ex.P-13Rough Sketch Ex.P-14Requisition for recording the statement of PW12
A.S.J.
Page 13 of 13 SC NO. 329 OF 2022
Ex.P-15Marked portion in confession cum recovery panchanama Ex.P-16Statement/Dying declaration
FOR DEFENCE:
-NIL-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO1: Green Color Iron pipe
MO2: Blood strained white color full hands shirt
Sd/-
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE
HUZURNAGAR
A.S.J.
OS No. 419 of 2025
(Old OS.No.96/2017) Page 1 of 11
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUZURNAGAR
PRESENT: Sri. N. SYAMASUNDAR,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,HUZURNAGAR.
O.S.NO. 419 OF 2025
(Old O.S.No.96 of 2017 on the file of
Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar)
(Wednesday, the 06thof May, 2026)
Between:
Eluri Rama Babu S/o. Seetharamaiah, Age: about 43 Yrs, Occ: Business R/o. Huzurnagar village and Mandal, Suryapeta District.
… PLAINTIFF
AND
Pasya Karunakar Reddy S/o Koti,Reddy, Age: about 28 Yrs, Occ: Manager Durga Bhavani Public School, Huzurnagar R/o. Behind Ramalayam, Huzurnagar (V&M) Suryapeta. … DEFENDANT
This suit is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri S. Ravi Kumar, Counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri S. Ram Reddy, Counsel for the defendant and after having stood over for consideration today this court doth pronounce the following:-
: J U D G M E N T :
1.This suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs. 1,71,866/- (Rupees
One Lakh Seventy one Thousand and Eight Hundred and sixty six Only) from defendant.
2. The brief averments of the plaintiff's case are as under:
2.1 That the defendant is well acquainted with the plaintiff. Thus the defendant borrowed and received an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-
S C J
OS No. 419 of 2025
(Old OS.No.96/2017) Page 2 of 11 (Rupees one lakh only) on 18.06.2014 from the plaintiff to meet his family expenses and on the same day the defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Huzurnagar village agreeing thereby to repay the same to the plaintiff or to his order on demand together with interest @24% p.a. The original promissory note is filed herewith as document. The said promissory note was scribed by one Pulichinthala Narasimha Reddy and attested by one
Katrevula Nageswar Rao.
2.2 That despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff for repayment due under the suit promissory note and another amount due under another promissory note dated.25.07.2014 for
Rs.2,00,000/-, the defendant issued a cheque to the plaintiff dated.28.02.2017 for Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) vide
Cheque No. 325071, drawn on Corporation Bank, Huzurnagar Branch on his account. The plaintiff presented the said cheque for collection but the same was returned by the banker due to insufficient funds in the account of the defendant. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to repay the amount due, having received the same the defendant did not repay any amount. The plaintiff reserving his right to take legal action against the defendant herein U/s. 138 of NI Act and civil suit for other promissory note.
S C J
OS No. 419 of 2025
(Old OS.No.96/2017) Page 3 of 11 2.3 That even after that, despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the amount due under this suit promissory note and have been postponing the matter on various pretexts. That as the limitation for filing of this suit promissory note is also going to expire, the defendant is dragging the matter. As such the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for realization of the amount due under the suit promissory note. Hence this suit.
3.On the other hand, the defendant filed his written statement denying the plaint averments and defendant submitted that he never obtained any loan from the plaintiff as on alleged date by the plaintiff as contending by him. However, this defendant is disputing the contention of the plaintiff that he was borrowed an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff to meet this defendant family expenses at Huzurnagar Village and Mandal, and he executed a separate promissory note in favor of the plaintiff and agreeing to repay the same with 24% interest to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and as such the same is specifically denied by this defendant. Moreover, the said averments are derogatory in nature and nothing but of mudslinging activity by the plaintiff. As a matter of fact, this defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, much less the amount of Rs.1,00,000=00, on 18-06-2014, by
S C J
OS No. 419 of 2025
(Old OS.No.96/2017) Page 4 of 11 executing a demand promissory note as contending by the plaintiff and as such the same is denied by this defendant. As there is no such transaction in between plaintiff and defendant and execution of the demand promissory note in favor of the plaintiff does not arise at all As a matter of fact, the plaintiff created the said alleged promissory note and pressed the same into service through the plaintiff and facts and circumstances in that regard are explained in detail in the subsequent paras of this written statement.
3.1 Defendant further submitted that the allegation made above as he created for the purpose of the case and as such the same are denied in toto. The question of alleged despite repeated demands to have been made by the plaintiff for the repayment of the alleged debt amount and another amount due under another promissory note dated: 18-06-2014 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by this defendant in favor of the plaintiff, does not arise at all, since this defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff as contending by the plaintiff. The further contention of the plaintiff, this defendant issued a cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- dated:28-02-2017, the said cheque also turn bounce, on that the plaintiff got issued the legal demand notice to this defendant and demanded this defendant to repay the alleged amount to him, the plaintiff is reserving his
S C J
OS No. 419 of 2025
(Old OS.No.96/2017) Page 5 of 11 right to file legal action against this defendant on the cheque bounce, is utterly false and as such the same is specifically denied by this defendant, while giving notice to the plaintiff for the strict proof of the same. Defendant further submitted that the calculation of the interest made by the plaintiff attracts the provisions of the
Usurious Loans Act. However, the very question of calculating the interest also does not arise at all, since this defendant never borrowed any amounts from the plaintiff, as contending by the plaintiff.
3.2. Defendant further submitted that there is no cause of action as shown in plaint and the dates of causes of action shown in the said plaint are all imaginary and as such this defendant is vehemently denying all the said allegations, by putting the plaintiff to the strict proof of the same. He submitted that this defendant used to sale his paddy to the plaintiff on credit basis. This defendant also used to collect the amount (paddy amount) as when he required. At the time of taking money by this defendant from the plaintiff, the plaintiff is being professional money lender and demanded this Defendant to execute promissory notes towards security and also issued cheque towards security as per his business rules. Under unavoidable circumstances, this defendant was forced
S C J
OS No. 419 of 2025
(Old OS.No.96/2017) Page 6 of 11 to signed on two empty promissory notes and also issued cheque in favor of the plaintiff and the same were handed over to the plaintiff.
It is further submitted that after this defendant meet to the plaintiff calculating his paddy amount, after deducting the plaintiff amount from the paddy amount, remaining balance amount was paid to this defendant by the plaintiff. But the plaintiff failed to return the original promissory notes and cheque to this defendant stating that the same were not traced out. Having good faith on the plaintiff, this defendant did not press him and again and again. At the same time some disputes arose in between this defendant and plaintiff with regard to sale the paddy.
3.3. Defendant submitted that there after this defendant never sold his paddy to the plaintiff. Keeping the same in his mind the plaintiff developed enmity against this defendant and got filled the empty Promissory note without signatures of this defendant and filed this false suit against this defendant also filled another empty promissory note along with endorsement on the name of the plaintiff and filed another suit against this defendant After receipts of the summons from the Hon'ble Court that this defendant came to know that the plaintiff cheated him and filed this suit and another suit against him for his wrongful gain with malafide intention and to
S C J
OS No. 419 of 2025
(Old OS.No.96/2017) Page 7 of 11 harass this defendant and also damage his reputation in the society.
since this defendant never borrowed any amounts from the plaintiff and another, as contending by the plaintiff. Submitting thus, he prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4.On the basis of above rival pleadings, the court of Junior
Civil Judge, Huzurnagar framed the following issues for trial.
i. Whether the suit promissory note dated:18.06.2014 is
true, valid and binding on the defendant?
ii. Whether the plaintiff entitled for recovery of suit
amount along with the cost as prayed for?
iii. To what relief?
5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW-1 and he got marked Exs.A1/Promissory note dated 18.06.2014. On the other hand, the defendant did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.
6. At the stage of arguments, the above case was transferred to this court from the court of Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar as per the orders of Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge,
Suryapet received in Dis.No.2566/2024/A1, dated: 25.10.2024 vide reference R.O.C.No.7059/OP Cell/2024, dt: 24.10.2024 of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
7.Heard the submissions of both sides counsel.
S C J
OS No. 419 of 2025
(Old OS.No.96/2017) Page 8 of 11
8.ISSUE Nos.1 AND 2:
In a suit for recovery of money whenever execution and passing of consideration is denied, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution and passing of consideration under the suit promissory note. In the present case the defendant took a plea he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and also he never executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.
9.In order to prove the suit transaction and also genuineness of
Ex.A1 and passing of consideration there under, the plaintiff commenced his side evidence, he himself is examined as PW1. PW1 in his chief examination affidavit reiterated the plaint averments and got marked Ex.A1/Promissory Note dated 18.06.2014 and one
Katrevula Nageshwar Rao was examined as PW2.
10.To substantiate the case of Plaintiff, he himself examined as
PW1 and one of the attesters examined as PW2 and got marked
Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note, dated 18-06-2014 for
Rs. 1,00,000-00 (Rupees one lakh only).
11. On perusal of Ex.A1, it clearly showing that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000-00 (Rupees one lakh only)
S C J
OS No. 419 of 2025
(Old OS.No.96/2017) Page 9 of 11 from the plaintiff on 18-06-2014. The evidence of PW2 is also corroborating the version of plaintiff.
12. In view of section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the
Court shall presume in favor of holder of instrument in respect of passing of consideration on the specified date and place, unless contrary is proved. In the case on hand, the defendant denied about the receipt of suit amount from the plaintiff and execution of suit promissory note in favor of the plaintiff, but he did not take any steps to believe his version. The PW1 and PW2 were not subjected to cross-examination by the defendant. After giving ample opportunities no representation on behalf of the defendant and costs also not paid. Hence the cross examination of PW1 and PW2 are treated as nil.
13. From the above discussions, this court opines that the plaintiff with the oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence of Ex.A1 has discharged his initial burden to prove that the Ex.A1 is true genuine, valid and supported by consideration and same is binding on the defendant and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for presumption under section 118 of N.I. Act, but the defendant failed to rebut same by producing any oral, documentary, circumstantial evidence, preponderance of possibility or presumption
S C J
OS No. 419 of 2025
(Old OS.No.96/2017) Page 10 of 11 of law or fact; and he even did not choose to enter into witness box and face the cross-examination. Thus there is no evidence on record to believe the version of the defendant.
14.From the above discussion, this Court opines that the plaintiff has successfully established his case that Ex.A1/Promissory Note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Since the defendant failed to pay the suit amount inspite of several oral and written demands made by the plaintiff, he is entitled to recover the suit amount with future interest thereon. Accordingly the issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
15) ISSUE No.3
IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,71,866/- to the plaintiff along with future 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.1,00,000/-.
(Dictated to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 06 th day of May, 2026).
Sd/-
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURNAGAR
S C J
OS No. 419 of 2025
(Old OS.No.96/2017) Page 11 of 11
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::
PW-1: Eluri Rama Babu PW-2: Katrevula Nageshwar rao
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:: -NIL-
:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::
Ex.A-1: Original Promissory Note, dated 18.06.2014
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT::
-NIL-
Sd/-
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURNAGAR
S C J
OS No. 279 of 2025
(Old OS No. 183/2019)Page 1 of 11
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: HUZURNAGAR
PRESENT: Sri. N. SYAMASUNDAR
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HUZURNAGAR.
(Wednesday, this the 06th day of May, 2026)
O.S.No. 279 OF 2025
(Old O.S.No. 183 of 2019 on the file of
Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar)
Between:-
Kuchipudi Swaruparani, W/o. Sundar Rao, Age:52 years, Occ: Health Supervisor, R/o. Nereducherla Village Mandal, Suryapet District. … PLAINTIFF AND
Ramanaboina Gurunadham, S/o Kondaiah, Age:48 years,Occ: Agriculture, R/o Dirsincherla Village, Nereducherla Mandal, Suryapet District.
… DEFENDANT @@@
This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. R.V.
Ramana Reddy, Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri. Ch.Krishnaiah, Counsel for the Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:-
JUDGMENT
1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking the recovery of
Rs.17,200/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Only) from defendant.
SCJ
OS No. 279 of 2025
(Old OS No. 183/2019)Page 2 of 11
2. The brief averments of the plaintiff's case are as under:
2.1 The defendant and the plaintiff are well acquainted with each other Due to the said acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) on 09- 10-2016 to meet his family expenses. The plaintiff has given the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant on the same day i.e. 09-10- 2016 at Nereducherla Village and Mandal, Erstwhile Nalgonda District now Suryapet District and after receipt of the said amount, the defendant has executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the said promissory note amount with interest @ 24% per annum to the plaintiff or her order on demand.
2.2 Later the plaintiff has demanded the defendant several times to repay the promissory note amount along with the interest. The defendant went on postponing the payment of suit amount to the plaintiff with an intention to evade the payment of the suit amount.
Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to sue the defendant and the defendant is liable to answer the same; Hence the suit.
3. Having received the summon, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement denying the borrowing of suit
SCJ
OS No. 279 of 2025
(Old OS No. 183/2019)Page 3 of 11 amounts. The brief averments of written statement of defendant are as under:
3.1 Defendant submitted that the plaintiff is a chronic litigant and also professional money lender and doing money lending business without any valid license in Nereducherla Village and Mandal since long back and also she filed so many suits against the innocent persons vide
O.S.No: 43/2017 and O.S.No: 64/2015 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and also Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge Court at Huzurnagar in order to grab the money illegally from them.
3.2 That the contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant and plaintiff are well acquainted with each other, but it is incorrect to say that with that acquaintance the defendant approached the plaintiff for a loan an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 09-10-2016 to meet his family expenses, as such the same is denied by this defendant. The further contentions of the plaintiff, that in pursuance of the request of the defendant, the plaintiff has lent the said amount of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant on 09-10-2016 at Nereducherla Village and Mandal, and that after receiving the said amount, the defendant has executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day and the defendant was agreeing to repay the same together with interest at
Rs.2-00 per one hundred rupees per month, while under taking to pay
SCJ
OS No. 279 of 2025
(Old OS No. 183/2019)Page 4 of 11 the same on demand to the plaintiff or to her order, are all utterly false and created for the purpose of the suit and as such the defendant is vehemently denying all the said allegations, while putting the plaintiff to the strict proof of the same.
3.3 Defendant further submitted that the allegations made above are all utterly false and created for the purpose of the case and as such the same are denied in toto. As a matter of fact, the question of alleged oral demands said to have been made several times by the plaintiff for the repayment of the alleged debt amount and that the defendant did not repay the same does not arise at all.
3.4 The question of calculating the interest does not arise at all, since there was no transaction in between the plaintiff and the defendant, as alleged by the plaintiff in her plaint.
3.5 Defendant submitted that the plaintiff and her husband by name
Sunder Rao were doing money lending business in Nereducherla Village and Mandal, without having valid license. The defendant is very much needed an amount of Rs.10,000/- under unavoidable circumstances the defendant taken loan an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff, at the time of lending amount to the defendant the plaintiff obtained the signatures on empty promissory note from the defendant, there
SCJ
OS No. 279 of 2025
(Old OS No. 183/2019)Page 5 of 11 after some time the defendant paid the entire amount along with agreed rate of interest to the plaintiff.
3.6 Defendant respectfully submitted that the plaintiff failed to return the original promissory note to the defendant by stating that the same was not traced out. Having good faith on the plaintiff, the defendant did not press her and again and again. At the same time some disputes arose in between plaintiff and defendant friend, the defendant placed the matter before the elders and also they advised the plaintiff to return the original empty promissory note to the defendant; the plaintiff undertook before the elders that she would not claim any amount under the suit promissory note. Keeping the same in her mind the plaintiff developed enmity against the defendant and got filled the empty Promissory note of the defendant and filed this false suit against the defendant. After receipt of the summons from the
Hon'ble Court that the defendant came to know that the plaintiff filed
this false suit against him for her wrongful gain with malafide intention and to harass the defendant and also damage his reputation in the society.
3.7 Defendant further submitted that the plaintiff is not having valid license for running the money lending business in Nereducherla Village and Mandal, and she filed the present false suit against the defendant
SCJ
OS No. 279 of 2025
(Old OS No. 183/2019)Page 6 of 11 with all false allegations and to harass the defendant and to get wrongful gain. The plaintiff is a money lender and she is not having any valid license and as such the provision of A.P. (Telagana Area)
Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasili is applicable to the plaintiff, so many persons are suffered with the physical, mental and financial harassment of the plaintiff 3.8 It is submitted that the suit promissory note is recently got attested by the attesters who are the henchmen's of plaintiff. The suit pronote is not valid. The suit pronote is not supported by consideration.
4. On the basis of above rival pleadings, this court framed the following issues for trial.
I. Whether the suit promissory notes, dated 09-10-2016 are true, genuine, valid and supported by consideration and binding on the defendant ?
II. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount along with the costs as prayed for?
III. To what relief ?
5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff herself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 document on her behalf.
SCJ
OS No. 279 of 2025
(Old OS No. 183/2019)Page 7 of 11
6. On the other hand, the defendant did not choose to adduce any evidence and his counsel in turn reported no instructions.
7. At the stage of arguments, the above case was transferred to this court from the court of Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar as per the orders of Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet received in Dis.No.2566/2024/A1, dated: 25.10.2024 vide reference
R.O.C.No.7059/OP Cell/2024, dt: 24.10.2024 of the Hon’ble High
Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
8.Heard the submissions of both sides counsel.
9. ISSUE Nos.1 AND 2:
In a suit for recovery of money whenever execution and passing of consideration is denied, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution and passing of consideration under the suit promissory note. In the present case the defendant took plea that he was very much needed an amount of Rs.10,000/- under unavoidable circumstances he took loan of an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff, at the time of lending amount to him the plaintiff obtained the signatures on empty promissory note from him, there after some time he paid the entire amount along with agreed rate of interest to the plaintiff. Respondent further submitted that the plaintiff failed to return the original promissory note to him by stating that the same was not
SCJ
OS No. 279 of 2025
(Old OS No. 183/2019)Page 8 of 11 traced out and he further submitted that suit promissory note is recently got attested by the attesters who are the henchmen's of plaintiff as such suit promissory note was not valid but the defendant failed to prove the same.
10. The categorical admissions of the defendant in his written statement about the receipt of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff on 09-10- 2016 and also execution of Ex. A1 promissory note promising to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand and also his failure to repay the amount due under the Ex. A1, would clearly establish the case of the plaintiff about the lending of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant under Ex. A1 promissory note and also his failure to repay the same inspite of several oral demands.
11.In order to prove the suit transaction and also genuineness of
Ex.A1 and passing of consideration there under, the plaintiff commenced her side evidence, she herself is examined as PW1. PW1 in her chief examination affidavit reiterated the plaint averments and got marked Ex.A1/Original Demand Promissory Note dated 09.10.2016.
12.To substantiate the case of Plaintiff, she herself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the Original Demand Promissory Note
dated 09.10.2016.
SCJ
OS No. 279 of 2025
(Old OS No. 183/2019)Page 9 of 11
13. On perusal of Ex.A1 it clearly showing that the defendant borrowed an amounts of Rs. Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff on 09.10.2016.
14. In view of section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the
Court shall presume in favor of holder of instrument in respect of passing of consideration on the specified date and place, unless contrary is proved. In the case on hand, the defendant agreed about the receipt of suit amount from the plaintiff and execution of suit promissory note in favor of the plaintiff, but he did not take any steps to believe his version.
15. From the above discussions, this court opines that the plaintiff with the oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence of Ex.A1 have discharged her initial burden to prove that the Ex.A1 and
Ex.A2 are true genuine, valid and supported by consideration and same is binding on the defendant and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for presumption under section 118 of N.I. Act, but the defendant failed to rebut same by producing any oral, documentary, circumstantial evidence, preponderance of possibility or presumption of law or fact; and he even did not choose to enter into witness box and face the cross-examination. Thus there is no evidence on record to believe the version of the defendant.
SCJ
OS No. 279 of 2025
(Old OS No. 183/2019)Page 10 of 11
16.From the above discussion, this Court opines that the plaintiff has successfully established her case that Ex.A1/ Original
Demand Promissory Note are true, valid and binding on the defendant. Since the defendant failed to pay the suit amount inspite of several oral and written demands made by the plaintiff, she is entitled to recover the suit amount with future interest thereon. Accordingly the issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
17. ISSUE No.3
IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favor of plaintiff against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay an amount of
Rs.17,200/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Only) to the plaintiff along with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on the total principal amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only).
(Dictated to Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06th day of May, 2026)
Sd/-
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR.
SCJ
OS No. 279 of 2025
(Old OS No. 183/2019)Page 11 of 11
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined on behalf of
PLAINTIFFDEFENDANT
PW-1 :Kuchipudi Swaruparani - NIL -
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF
Ex.A1 : Original Demand Promissory Note, Dt:09.10.2016
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT
- NIL-
Sd/-
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR
SCJ
OS No. 153 of 2025
(Old OS No. 110/2019)Page 1 of 10
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: HUZURNAGAR
PRESENT: Sri. N. SYAMASUNDAR
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HUZURNAGAR.
(Wednesday, this the 06th day of May, 2026)
O.S.No. 153 OF 2025
(Old O.S.No. 110 of 2019 on the file of
Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar)
Between:-
Gopireddy Venkata Reddy, S/o Obul Reddy, aged 55 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Dondapadu Village, Chinthalapalem Mandal, Suryapet District … PLAINTIFF AND
Marudi Rami Reddy, S/o Papi Reddy, Aged 45 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Dondapadu Village, Chinthalapalem Mandal, Suryapet District.
… DEFENDANT @@@
This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.
V.G.K.Murthy, Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri. T. Murali, Counsel for the
Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this
Court made the following:-
JUDGMENT
1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking the recovery of
Rs.1,88,393/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Three Only) from defendant.
SCJ
OS No. 153 of 2025
(Old OS No. 110/2019)Page 2 of 10
2. The brief averments of the plaintiff's case are as under:
2.1 The defendant and the plaintiff are well acquainted with each other and are the same Villagers. Due to the said acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) on 02-08-2016 to meet his family expenses. The plaintiff has given the said amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the defendant on the same day i.e., 02-08- 2016 at Dondapadu Village, Erstwhile Mellachervu Mandal, now
Chinthalapalem Mandal, Erstwhile Nalgonda District now Suryapet District and after receipt of the said amount, the defendant has executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the said promissory note amount with interest @24% per annum to the plaintiff or his order on demand.
2.2 Again on the same day i.e., 02-08-2016 the defendant approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on 02-08- 2016 to meet his family expenses. The plaintiff has given the said amount of
Rs. 50,000/- to the defendant on the same day i.e. 02-08-2016 at
Dondapadu Village, Erstwhile Mellachervu Mandal, now Chinthalapalem
Mandal, Erstwhile Nalgonda District now Suryapet District and after receipt of the said amount, the defendant has executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the said promissory note
SCJ
OS No. 153 of 2025
(Old OS No. 110/2019)Page 3 of 10 amount with interest @24% per annum to the plaintiff or his order on demand.
2.3 The defendant has executed two separate promissory notes on 02-08- 2016 in favour of the plaintiff. After that the plaintiff has demanded the defendant several times to repay the said two promissory notes amount along with the interest. The defendant went on postponing the payment of said two promissory notes amount to the plaintiff with an intention to evade the payment of the suit amount. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to sue the defendant and the defendant is liable to answer the same. Hence the suit.
3. Having received the summon, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement denying the borrowing of suit amounts. The brief averments of written statement of defendant are as under:
3.1 Defendant denied that the plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other and due to such acquaintance the defendant approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.60,000/- on 02.08.2016 to meet his family expenses and the plaintiff has given the said amount to the defendant on the same day at Dondapadu Village and after receipt of the said amount, the defendant has executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @24% per annum to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.
SCJ
OS No. 153 of 2025
(Old OS No. 110/2019)Page 4 of 10 3.2 Defendant denied that again on the same day i.e; 02-08-2016 the defendant approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.50,000/- on 02.08.2016 to meet his family expenses and the plaintiff has given the said amount to the defendant on the same day at Dondapadu Village and after receipt of the said amount, the defendant has executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @24% per annum to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.
3.3 Defendant denied that the plaintiff several times demanded the defendant to repay the said two promissory notes amount along with interest and the defendant went on postponing the payment of said two promissory notes amount to the plaintiff with intention to evade the same.
3.4 Defendant denied that the defendant never borrowed any amounts from the plaintiff and never executed the alleged suit promissory notes. The defendant has no need to borrow any amount from the plaintiff. Hence, there is no question of taking a loans from the plaintiff and execution of promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff.
3.5 Defendant that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such an amount.
The plaintiff and defendant are having some differences as such the plaintiff developed a grudge against the defendant and filed this suit by forging and fabricating the suit promissory notes with the active assistance of the scribe and attesters for illegal gain and to harass the defendant.
SCJ
OS No. 153 of 2025
(Old OS No. 110/2019)Page 5 of 10 3.6 There is no cause of action to file this suit for the plaintiff against this defendant as the plaintiff created the suit pro-notes. The alleged cause of actions are created by the plaintiff for the purpose of this suit.
3.7 Defendant denied that the defendant specifically pleads that the suit promissory notes are invalid documents and not supported by consideration and the cause of action set forth in the plaint is tainted with artificiality. The suit claim is baseless and unfounded. The allegations of the plaintiff are false and the defendant is not bound to pay any amounts to the plaintiff under the suit promissory notes.
4. On the basis of above rival pleadings, this court framed the following issues for trial.
II Whether the suit promissory notes, dated 02-08-2016 are true, genuine, valid and supported by consideration and binding on the defendant ?
II To what relief ?
5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 and A2 documents on his behalf.
6. On the other hand, the defendant did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf and even failed to do cross-examine the
SCJ
OS No. 153 of 2025
(Old OS No. 110/2019)Page 6 of 10
Plaintiff/PW1. As there is no representation on behalf of defendant, his evidence was closed on 07.04.2026.
7. At the stage of arguments, the above case was transferred to
this court from the court of Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar as per
the orders of Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet
received in Dis.No.2566/2024/A1, dated: 25.10.2024 vide reference
R.O.C.No.7059/OP Cell/2024, dt: 24.10.2024 of the Hon’ble High
Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
8.Heard the submissions of both sides counsel.
9. ISSUE Nos.1 AND 2:
In a suit for recovery of money whenever execution and passing of consideration is denied, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution and passing of consideration under the suit promissory note. In the present case the defendant took a plea that the signature on the demand promissory notes are forged one and he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and also he never executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.
1.
10.In order to prove the suit transaction and also genuineness of
Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and passing of consideration there under, the plaintiff
SCJ
OS No. 153 of 2025
(Old OS No. 110/2019)Page 7 of 10 commenced his side evidence, he himself is examined as PW1. PW1 in his chief examination affidavit reiterated the plaint averments and got marked Ex.A1, Ex.A2/Promissory Notes for Rs.60,000/-, Rs.50,000/-
dated 02.08.2016.
11.To substantiate the case of Plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note, dated 02-08-2016 for Rs. 60,000/- and Ex.A2 is the original promissory note, dated 02-08-2016 for Rs. 50,000/-
12. On perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 it clearly showing that the defendant borrowed an amounts of Rs. Rs.60,000/-, Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 02.08.2016.
13. In view of section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the
Court shall presume in favor of holder of instrument in respect of passing of consideration on the specified date and place, unless contrary is proved. In the case on hand, the defendant denied about the receipt of suit amount from the plaintiff and execution of suit promissory note in favor of the plaintiff, but he did not take any steps to believe his version. The PW1 was not subjected to cross-examination by the defendant. After giving ample opportunities no representation
SCJ
OS No. 153 of 2025
(Old OS No. 110/2019)Page 8 of 10 on behalf of the defendant and costs also not paid. Hence the cross examination of PW1 is treated as nil.
14. From the above discussions, this court opines that the plaintiff
with the oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence of Ex.A1
and Ex.A2 have discharged his initial burden to prove that the
Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are true genuine, valid and supported by
consideration and same is binding on the defendant and therefore,
the plaintiff is entitled for presumption under section 118 of N.I.
Act, but the defendant failed to rebut same by producing any oral,
documentary, circumstantial evidence, preponderance of possibility or presumption of law or fact; and he even did not choose to enter into witness box and face the cross-examination. Thus there is no evidence on record to believe the version of the defendant.
15.From the above discussion, this Court opines that the plaintiff
has successfully established his case that Ex.A1, Ex.A2/Promissory
Notes are true, valid and binding on the defendant and the
defendant failed to prove the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are forged
documents. Since the defendant failed to pay the suit amount
inspite of several oral and written demands made by the plaintiff,
he is entitled to recover the suit amount with future interest
SCJ
OS No. 153 of 2025
(Old OS No. 110/2019)Page 9 of 10
thereon. Accordingly the issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour
of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
16. ISSUE No.3
IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favor of plaintiff against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay an amount of
Rs.1,88,393/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Three Only) to the plaintiff along with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on the total principal amount of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ten
Thousand Only).
(Dicted to Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06th day of May, 2026)
Sd/-
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR.
SCJ
OS No. 153 of 2025
(Old OS No. 110/2019)Page 10 of 10
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined on behalf of
PLAINTIFFDEFENDANT
PW-1 : Gopireddy Venkata Reddy - NIL -
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF
Ex.A1 : Original Promissory Note, Dt:02.08.2016 for Rs.60,000/-
Ex.A2 : Original Promissory Note, Dt:02.08.2016 for Rs.50,000/-
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT
- NIL-
Sd/-
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURNAGAR
SCJ
Order Record 9 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC/329/2022 | STATE OF TELANGANA SHO HUZURNAGAR vs Jillepally Prabhakar | 19 May 2026 | Judgement | Acquitted |
| OS/9/2025 | Mamidi Ramalu vs Oruganti Bharathi | 06 May 2026 | Judgement | — |
| OS/153/2025 | Gopireeddy Venkata Reddy vs Marudi Rami reddy | 06 May 2026 | Judgement | — |
| OS/279/2025 | Kuchipudi Swaruparani vs Ramanaboina Gurunadham | 06 May 2026 | Judgement | — |
| OS/419/2025 | eluri rama babu vs Vspasya karunakar reddy | 06 May 2026 | Judgement | — |
| H.M.O.P/48/2025 | MITTAGANUPULA NAGENDRA ALIAS CHILAKA NAGENDRA vs MITTAGANUPULA RAVI SHANKAR | 06 May 2026 | Order | — |
| H.M.O.P/72/2025 | Chakkara alias Chintakuntla Jyothi vs Chakkara Saidi Reddy | 06 May 2026 | Order | — |
| H.M.O.P/68/2025 | SURE THIRUPATHI ALIAS THIRUPATHAMMA ALIAS BAGE THIRUPATHI ALIAS THIRUPATHAMMA vs Sure Saibaba | 28 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
| H.M.O.P/76/2025 | KARANGULA ALIAS VALLAPUDASU NAGAJYOTHI vs Karangula Veerababu | 28 Apr 2026 | Order | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Syamasundar Nakka handled?
Syamasundar Nakka has handled 9 court orders since 2026 at Huzurnagar, ADJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 8 orders per month.
What types of cases does Syamasundar Nakka hear?
Based on available records, Syamasundar Nakka primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Huzurnagar, ADJ Court Complex.
Where is Syamasundar Nakka currently posted?
Syamasundar Nakka is posted as Senior Civil Judge at Huzurnagar, ADJ Court Complex, Suryapet, Telangana.
Are judgments by Syamasundar Nakka available online?
Yes. 5 judgments by Syamasundar Nakka are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does Syamasundar Nakka dispose cases?
Syamasundar Nakka disposes approximately 8 cases per month, based on 9 orders handled over their tenure at Huzurnagar, ADJ Court Complex.
Since when is Syamasundar Nakka serving?
Syamasundar Nakka has been serving at Huzurnagar, ADJ Court Complex since 2026. and is currently posted there.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Apr 2026 — PresentSenior Civil Judge · 9 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court