Sri Syed Ziauddin

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), VIJAYAWADA.

Present:- Sri. Syed Ziyauddin,

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada.

Monday, the Tenth (10 th ) day of February, Two thousand and

Twenty Five

O.S.NO.2109/2021

BETWEEN: Yalamarthi Narasimha Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao, aged about 51 years, R/o. D.No.111/8, Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District.

...... Plaintiff

Vs.

1.Yalamarthi Renuka, W/o. Late Subhash Chandra Bose, aged about 63 years, R/o. D.No.1-154, Velpur Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.

2. Yalamarthi Hanuman, S/o. Late Subhash Chandra Bose, aged about 39 years, C/o. Subhash Ladies Tailors Shoppee, Prop. Y. Adi Lakshmi, Kesarapalli Centre, Kesarapalli Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District.

3.Polukonda Lakshmi, W/o. P.V. Ramesh Babu, aged about 38 years, R/o. H.No.21-11/7-40, Saibaba Colony, 7th line, Near Railway Station Ticket Counter, Madhura Nagar, Vijayawada.

….. Defendants

This suit is coming on 06-02-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. G.T.V.V. Satish, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri. B. Jawaharlal David, Advocate for the defendants, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following.

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This suit is filed for a) recovery of Rs.03,44,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization from the estate of the deceased by name

Yalamarthi Subhash Chandra Bose, lying in the hands of the defendants, b) costs of the suit and c) other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

2)The averments of the plaint in nutshell are that :

The deceased Yalamarthi Subhash Chandra Bose is the husband of first defendant and father of the second and third defendants. During the life time of the deceased Yalamarthi Subhash

Chandrabose along with first defendant jointly borrowed total amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- on four occasions (Rs.50,000/- each on 12.12.2018, 13.12.2018, 14.12.2018 and 15.12.2018 respectively) from the plaintiff for the family and medical expenses of Y. Subhash Chandra Bose and in consideration thereof they jointly executed four promissory notes at

Rs.50,000/- each on 12.12.2018, 13.12.2018, 14.12.2018 and 15.12.2018 respectively agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% P.A.. Subsequently, the said Yalamarthi Subhash Chandra

Bose died on 13.05.2021 leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs and his estate devolved upon the defendants. Inspite of several demands including issuance of legal notice dated 23.10.2021 the defendants did not pay the amount. Hence, the suit.

3)The averments of the written statement of the defendants apart from denying the contents of the plaint in nutshell are that

The first defendant and her husband Y. Subash Chandra

Bose never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and they never executed any promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. There are family disputes between the family of the deceased Yalamarthi Subhash

Chandra Bose and Plaintiff, due to that he bore grudge and fabricated the suit promissory notes with the active support of the attestor and scribe. The deceased Yalamarthi Subash Chandra Bose was suffered with kidney disease and he has taken treatment of dialysis for 15 years and he was complete bed rest at Velpuru village of Kankipadu Mandal,

Krishna District. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

4)Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial.

1)Whether the suit promissory notes dated 12.12.2018 for Rs.50,000/-, dated 13.12.2018 for Rs.50,000/-,

dated 15.12.2018 for Rs.50,000/- and 14.12.2018 for

Rs.50,000/- are true, valid, genuine and binding on the defendants?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

3)To what relief?

5)During the course of trial the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. Ex.A1 is the Original

Promissory note dated 12.12.2018 for Rs.50,000/-. Ex.A2 is the Original

Promissory note dated 13.12.2018 for Rs.50,000/-. Ex.A3 is the Original

Promissory note dated 15.12.2018 for Rs.50,000/-. Ex.A4 is the Original

Promissory note dated 14.12.2018 for Rs.50,000/-. Ex.A5 is the office copy of legal notice dated 23.10.2021. Ex.A6 is the postal acknowledgment of D1. Ex.A7 is the postal acknowledgment of D2.

Ex.A8 is the postal acknowledgment of D3. The attestor of Ex.A1 to

Ex.A4 by name Yalamarthi Srinivasa Rao is examined as Pw.2. None were examined on behalf of defendants and no documents are marked on their behalf.

6)To prove his case the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1.

He filed his chief-examination by way of an affidavit reiterating all the averments of the plaint. Exs.A1 to Ex.A8 are marked. He was cross- examined by the counsel for the defendant. In his cross-examination he admitted that the defendants are his relatives. The deceased Subhash

Chandra Bose was a dialysis patient for 15 years and he used to obtain dialysis treatment twice in a week between 7.00 A.M. and 12.00 Noon.

The first attestor is his relative; the second attestor and the scribe were brought by the deceased Subhash Chandra Bose. The alleged transaction took place at the house situated at LIC colony, Vijayawada.

The address of Mangalagiri was written in the alleged promissory notes as the said address is reflecting in his aadhar card. The deceased resided at Velpuru villae of Kankipadu Mandal of Krishna District. The distance between Vijayawada and the Velpuru village is nearly 12 Kms.

The alleged transactions took place in the evening hours. The dialysis treatment was held on the date of one transaction out of the four transactions dates. He denied the suggestion that as the deceased suffered and taken dialysis treatment at his village the question of visiting to Vijayawada and borrowing the amount does not arise. He is an income tax assessee. He withdrew the amount prior to one month ten days of the dates of the alleged promissory notes. The denomination of the above said amount is five hundred rupee new currency notes. The husband of the first defendant counted the money in all the four occasions. He denied the suggestion that the signatures are different on all the four promissory notes. He denied the suggestion that due to misunderstandings and family disputes between him and the family of the defendants he filed the present suit against them. He denied the suggestion that the attestors and scribe of the alleged promissory notes are the known persons to him and he colluded with them and created the alleged promissory notes by obtaining their signatures just prior to the filing of the suit. He denied the suggestion that the husband of the first defendant never borrowed the amount under Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and he is deposing false. He denied the suggestion that as the husband of the first defendant was the dialysis patient, affixing signature itself is difficult and counting the money by him does not arise at all.

7)The plaintiff got examined the attestor of Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 promissory notes by name Yalamarthi Srinivasa Rao as Pw.2. He filed his chief-examination by way of an affidavit. In his affidavit he stated in the same version of Pw.1. He further stated that one P. Harikrishna scribed Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 promissory notes. The first defendant and her husband signed on the said promissory notes after receiving the consideration from the plaintiff. He acted as attestor along with Vaddi

Subramanyam for Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. The scribe P. Harikrishna and the attestor Vaddi Subramanyam were brought by the first defendant and her husband. He was cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants. In his cross-examination he stated that the plaintiff is his younger brother and the deceased Subhash Chandra Bose is his junior paternal uncle. At the time of alleged transaction the deceased Subash

Chandra Bose, first defendant, Subramanyam and Hari Krishna were present. The deceased Subhash Chandra Bose and his wife affixed their signatures in his presence. The alleged amount was borrowed for the medical and family expenses of the deceased Subhash Chandra

Bose. He denied the suggestion that there is a difference in the signatures of the deceased on the alleged promissory notes with each other. The alleged promissory notes were not executed on the same day and the same were executed on 12.12.2018, 13.12.2018, 14.12.2018 and 15.12.2018 respectively. He denied the suggestion that the deceased and his wife never brought the second attestor and scribe along with them and the plaintiff himself brought the said attestor and scribe with him. He denied the suggestion that due to family disputes they created the alleged promissory notes and filed false suit to harass the defendant. He denied the suggestion that there is no necessity for the deceased and his wife to borrow the alleged amounts for the medical expenses of the deceased as they are having sufficient means to incur the same. He denied the suggestion that as the defendants are not amicable with them for that they created the alleged promissory notes and filed this case only to harass them.

8)Heard the arguments of the plaintiff. Inspite of granting several adjournments and conditional orders the defendants did not advance their arguments, hence, the arguments on behalf of the defendants is treated it as heard. Perused the pleadings, evidence, documents and other material on record.

9) ISSUE NO.1

i) The admitted facts in this case are that the first defendant is the wife, second and third defendants are the children of the deceased Subhash Chandra Bose. The deceased Subhash Chandra

Bose is the junior paternal uncle of the plaintiff and Pw.2.

ii) The case of the plaintiff in nutshell is that the deceased

Subhash Chandra Bose and his wife who is the first defendant jointly borrowed the total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in four occasions and executed four promissory notes at Rs.50,000/- each on 12.12.2018, 13.12.2018, 14.12.2018 and 15.12.2018 respectively agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% P.A. Subsequently the deceased died on 13.05.2021. In spite of demands, the defendants did not pay the amount.

iii) The case of the defendants as set out in their written statement is that the first defendant and her deceased husband Y.

Subhash Chandra Bose never borrowed any amount and never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Due to the family disputes between their family and the plaintiff, the plaintiff bore grudge and fabricated the promissory notes with the active support of the attestors and scribe.

iv) In this case the defendants have taken a plea in their written statement that the suit promissory notes are fabricated documents which were created with the active support of the attestors and scribe due the family disputes between them. Whereas the plaintiff says that the first defendant and her deceased husband jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on four occasions and jointly executed Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 promissory notes. Though the defendants have taken a plea that the suit promissory notes are fabricated, they did not enter into the witness box and did not deny the execution of Ex.A1 to E.A4. There is no rebuttal evidence adduced by the defendant to rebut the case of the plaintiff. Moreover, if the version of the defendants is true definitely they might have issued reply notice to the notice of Ex.P5 alleging the defence taken by them in this case and they might have also initiate legal action against the Plaintiff. No prudent man will keep quiet when the document is fabricated and filed a false suit against him. There is no explanation forthcoming from the defendants what prevented them to issue reply notice and initiate legal action when the documents were fabricated and filed case against them. Therefore in these circumstances, except the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 there is no other evidence adduced by the defendants to come to a different conclusion that Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are fabricated documents. In these circumstances this court is of the considered view that the first defendant and her deceased husband jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and executed Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 promissory notes. Thus Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are genuine documents executed by the first defendant and her deceased husband after receipt of consideration there under. Thus the plaintiff has proved his case. Accordingly, this issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

10) ISSUE NO.2

In view of the decision of this court on issue No1 the plaintiff is entitled decree in his favour. The agreed rate of interest is 24% p.a. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled for interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from date of suit till date of decree on principal amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-. Further as per Sec.34 CPC the plaintiff is entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. In view of the facts existing in this suit the plaintiff is entitled for suit costs from the estate of the deceased lying in the hands defendant Nos.1 to 3. After taking all these aspects into consideration this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as discussed and decided in the aforesaid paragraphs. Accordingly, this issue No.2 is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

11) ISSUE NO.3

In view of the decision of this court on issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants this suit has merits and deserves to be decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the estate of the deceased lying in the hands of defendant Nos.1 to 3.

This issue is answered accordingly.

12)In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Nos.1 to 3, directing the defendants

Nos.1 to 3 to pay to the plaintiff the suit amount of Rs.03,44,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree on principal amount of Rs.02,00,000/- and at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.02,00,000/- from the estate of deceased Y. Subhash

Chandra Bose if any lying in the hands of defendant Nos.1 to 3.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the day of 10th day of February, 2025.

Sd/-XXXX

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE ( JUNIOR DIVISION),

VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW.1:Y. Narasimha Rao -none- PW.2: Y. Srinivasa Rao

Documents marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

Ex.A1:Original Promissory note date dated 12.12.2018NIL for Rs.50,000/- said to be executed by the 1st defendant and her husband in favour of plaintiff Ex.A2:Original promissory note dated 13.12.2018 for Rs.50,000/- said to be executed by the 1st defendant and her husband in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A3:Original promissory note dated 15.12.2018 for Rs.50,000/- said to be executed by the 1st defendant6 and her husband in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A4:Original promissory note dated 14.12.2018 for Rs.50,000/- said to be executed by the 1st defendant6 and her husband in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A5:Office copy of legal notice dated 23.10.2021 Ex.A6:Postal acknowledgment of D1 Ex.A7:Postal acknowledgment of D2 Ex.A8:Postal acknowledgment of D3

Sd/-XXXXX

I ACJ(JD)/VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), VIJAYAWADA.

Present:- Sri. Syed Ziyauddin,

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the Thirteenth (13 th ) day of

February, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT No:895 of 2022

BETWEEN:

1. Davu Nagulamma, W/o. Late Ambaiah, aged about 78 years, R/o. Rajakula Veedhi, Behind Srinivasa Temple, Nuzvid, Krishna District.

2.Bezawada Kanaka Durga Kumari, W/o. Sambasiva Rao, aged about 52 years, R/o. Rajakula Veedhi, Behind Srinivasa Temple, Nuzvid, Krishna District.

3.Badugu Sarada Kumari, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, aged about 50 years, R/o. Rajakula Veedhi, Behind Srinivasa Temple, Nuzvid, Krishna District.

4.Badugu Yedukondalu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 52 years, R/o. Rajakula Veedhi, Behind Srinivasa Temple, Nuzvid, Krishna District.

5.Maragani Parameswari, W/o. Sriramulu, aged about 46 years, R/o. Rajakula Veedhi, Behind Srinivasa Temple, Nuzvid, Krishna District.

...... Plaintiffs

Vs.

Davu Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o. Sambaiah, aged about 50 years, R/o. P-Nynavaram Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District.

….. Defendant

This suit is coming on 12-02-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Veeragani Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri. Dhara Satyanarayana, Advocate for the defendant, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

01.The plaintiffs have filed this suit seeking a decree and judgment in their favor against the defendant granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the plaint schedule properties to the thirds parties in any manner whatsoever, costs of the suit and all such other reliefs the court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.

02.The case of the plaintiffs is that-

i) The first plaintiff is the wife and second, third and fifth plaintiffs are the daughters and fourth plaintiff is the son-in-law of Sri Davu Ambaiah. The said Davu Ambaiah has acquired the plaint schedule properties apart from other properties by virtue of registered partition deed bearing document No.2674/1971 dated 4.8.1971 executed among himself and his brothers Davu Hanumaiah, Davu Basavaiah, Davu Veeriah, Davu

Sriramulu, Davu Sambaiah and Davu Ramaiah. By virtue of the said partition deed, A-Schedule properties fell to the share of Davu

Hanumaiah, B-Schedule properties fell to the share of Davu Basavaiah,

C-Schedule properties fell to the share of Davu Veeraiah, D-Schedule properties fell to the share of Davu Ambaiah, E-Schedule properties fell to the share of Davu Sambaiah and G-Schedule properties with life interest rights fell to the share of Davu Ramaiah. The plaint schedule properties covered under item No.2 and 3 of the D-Schedle properties.

Subsequently while enjoying the plaint schedule properties with absolute rights and possession, Davu Ambaiah died on 26.4.2009 by leaving behind him, the plaintis as his legal heirs. Ater the death of Davu

Ambaiah, his properties were devolved upon his legal heirs by virtue of right. During his life time, Davu Ambaiah has made an application dated 24.12.2007 to the Mandal Revunue Officer, Vijayawada for issuance of pattadar Passbook and title deed book by incorporating the plaint schedule properties in the said Pattadar Pass book and title deed book.

ii) The defendant is the son of Davu Ambaiah’s brother

Sambaiah. Since the said Davu Ambaiah has no male issues his legal heirs/plaintiffs used to get assistance from the defendant in agricultural operations in the plaint schedule property. Taking undue advantage of the absence of male members in the family, the defendant is making hectic efforts to alienate the plaint schedule properties to the third parties without having any manner of right or title with a view to grab the plaint schedule properties.

iii) The plaintiffs apprehend immense danger to their properties in the hands of the defendant. The defendant is no way concerned with the plaint schedule properties and he has no right whatsoever. The acts of the defendant are highhanded, illegal and he is bent upon to encroach upon the property. The acts of the defendant are infringement of the legal right to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs came to know that the defendant is creating false documents with a view to grab the plaint schedule properties with dishonest intention to gain illegally.

The plaintiffs are not in a position to protect their possession in the plaint schedule property without the assistance of the court as the defendant is having enormous support of the anti social elements. The defendant and his henchmen are proclaiming that they will not allow the plaintiffs to enjoy the plaint schedule property peacefully in any way or by any means by hook or crook.

iv) The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties as absolute owners. Their rights are protected under law and the defendant has no manner of right whatsoever in the plaint schedule property. Balance of convenience and irreparable loss lie in favour of the plaintiffs in the present case on hand. If the defendant is allowed to materialize their unjust attempts, the ends of justice would suffer great and irreparable loss. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit.

03.The averments of the written statement of the defendant apart from denying the contents of plaint and affidavit are as follows:

i) Originally one Davu Ambaiah has acquired the plaint schedule properties and other properties by virtue of registered partition deed No.2674/1971 dated 4.8.1971 executed among himself and his brothers by name Davu Hanumaiah, Davu Basavaiah, Davu Veeriaiah,

Davu Sriramulu, Davu Sambaiah and Davu Ramiah. Since then they were in possession and enjoyment of their joint family properties with absolute rights.

ii) The said Davu Hanumaiah, Davu Basavaiah, Davu

Veeriaiah, Davu Sriramulu, Davu Sambaiah and Davu Ramiah were made a partition list among themselves with regard to the joint family properties with metes and bounds under partition list dated 14.11.1980.

According to the said partition list dated 14.11.1980, plaint schedule property is fell to the share of Davu Samabaih. Since then, he was in possession and enjoyment of the said properties with absolute rights and title. Consequently, the father of the defendant Davu Sambaiah mutated his name in all village revenue records like pattadar pass book, adangal phani, ROR etc. As per the revenue records, Davu Sambaiah was in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties during his life time. Thereafter, father of the defendant Davu

Sambaiah died intestate on 10.08.2004 leaving behind him his wife Davu

Nageswaramma and the defendant herein. After the demise of Davu

Sambaiah, the plaint schedule properties and other properties are devolved upon his legal heirs. Since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties with absolute rights and title. The mother of the defendant executed a registered will in a sound and disposing state of mind under Doc.No.30 of BK III/2012 dated 31.10.2012 of S.R.O. Nunna bequeathing the plaint schedule properties in favour of her son/defendant herein. After the death of the mother of the mother of the defendant, the defendant became absolute owner and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said properties with absolute rights and title.

iii) The defendant mutated his name revenue records. The

Tahsildar, Revune department, Government of Andhra Padesh issued patta No.610, 06Q160010000258 which disclosing that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties with absolute rights and title. The defendant has been paying all relevant taxes to the concerned department.

iv) The plaintiffs got filed the alleged suit without disclosing the true facts by misleading the court. The plaintiffs with an eye sore on the properties of the defendant got filed the alleged suit with a dishonest intention to gain wrongfully from the defendant for which they are not entitled. The plaintiffs are also having properties and they are enjoying their respective shares, but not satisfied, they colluded with each other and is trying to create hurdles against the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs have no manner of right to file the suit and they filed the same only to harass the defendant. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

04.Basing on the rival pleadings the following issues are framed for trial:

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

2) To what relief?

05.Despite granting several adjournments and conditional orders, the plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence on his behalf. Therefore, the evidence for the plaintiffs was closed on 10.12.2024. Similarly, the defendant also did not adduce evidence and the evidence of the defendant was also closed on 05.02.2024. As a result, there is no evidence on record from either party.

06.Despite granting several adjournments and conditional orders, the plaintiffs failed to advance arguments, consequently the arguments on behalf of plaintiffs is treated it as heard. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant. Perused the material on record.

07. ISSUE NO.1

i) The plaintiff filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the plaint schedule properties to the third parties. The defendant filed his written statement contending inter-alia that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same.

ii) In this case, both the parties did not adduce evidence on their behalf. Hence, the evidence on behalf of both the parties was closed.

In these circumstances, the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove their case.

But no evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs to discharge their burden and on the other hand the defendant did not adduce any evidence and there is no evidence on behalf of both the sides. In view of these circumstances there is no evidence on record on both the sides to prove their rival contentions in support of their pleadings. In these circumstances, there is no other option left to this court to dismiss the suit as the plaintiffs did not come forward to give their evidence and the defendant also did not come forward to prove his case. This issue is answered accordingly.

O8. ISSUE NO.2

In view of the finding of this court on issue No.1 this suit is liable to be dismissed.

09.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the day of 13th day of February,

2025.

Sd/-XXXX

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE ( JUNIOR DIVISION),

VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendant:

---None--- ---None---

Documents marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

--Nill-- --Nill--

Sd/-XXX

I ACJ(JD)/VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), VIJAYAWADA.

Present:- Sri. Syed Ziyauddin,

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 13th day of February, 2025.

Original Suit No.833 of 2021

BETWEEN:

1.Prabhala Chandra Prakash, S/o. Late Rama Chandra Sastry, aged about 68 years, Retd.Employee, residing at Door No. 27-15-16, Mudda Subbaiah Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada. (Died)

2.Prabhala Uma Devi, W/o. Late Prabhala Chandra Prakash, aged about 68 years, House wife and Properties, residing at Ayodhya Nagar, Vijayawada.

3.Prabhala Ramya, W/o. J. Srinivas & D/o. Late Prabhala Chandra Prakesh, aged about 40 years, Employee, Permanent Resident of Ayodhya Nagar, Vijayawada.

(Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are added as per the orders in

I.A.No.551/2022 dated 25.07.2024) ...... Plaintiffs

AND Kuchinapudi Srinivas, S/o. Durga Rao, Employee, aged about 32 years, Govt. Employee, Working as a Junior Assistant in the O/o. Nodal Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, D.No.31-7-8, Goginenivari Street, Maruti Nagar, Vijayawada and residing at Door No: 6-212, 2nd Floor, Pattelavari Street, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada.

….. Defendant

This suit is coming on 12-02-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. S. Siva Sankara Prasad, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and the defendant was remained set exparte, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the first plaintiff for a) recovery of

Rs.07,25,474/- together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization from the defendant, b) costs of the suit and

c) other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

02.The brief averments of the plaint in nut shell are that :-

The second plaintiff is the wife and the third plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff. During the life time of the first plaintiff, the defendant for the family expenses borrowed a total amount of

Rs.04,50,000/- from him agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and in consideration thereof, the defendant executed promissory note dated 12.10.2018 in favour of the first plaintiff. In spite of several demands the defendant did not pay the amount and kept quiet.

Hence, the first plaintiff constrained to file the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died intestate on 13.09.2021 leaving behind the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 as his legal heirs to succeed his estate left behind him. Hence, the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are added as per the orders in I.A.No.551/2022 dated 25.07.2024.

03.Summons were issued to the defendant through court and registered post. The summons which were sent through registered post were returned as refused. The service of summons on the defendant is held sufficient, as the defendant is called absent, he was set ex-parte on 02.12.2024.

04.During the course of trial, P.W.1 is examined, Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked on behalf of the plaintiffs.

05. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Perused the material on record.

06.Now the point that arises for determination is: “Whether the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for suit claim amount as prayed for”?

POINT:

07. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the second plaintiff deposed evidence as Pw.1 by filing her chief-examination affidavit, Ex.A1 is the promissory note dated 12.10.2018 for Rs.4,50,000/-, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 27.2.2021. Ex,.A3 is the postal acknowledgment. Pw.1 in her evidence deposed reiterating the contents of the plaint. After considering the material on record, it is clearly established from the material on record, that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.04,50,000/- under Ex.A1 promissory note from the first plaintiff and thereafter he has not repaid the amount due to the 1st plaintiff, he filed the suit and during the pendency of the suit he died leaving behind the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 as his legal heirs, therefore, the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for the relief as prayed for. On considering the entire material on record, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs proved their case against the defendant.

08.On the other hand, the defendant did not appear before this court, not filed his written statement, not contested the suit. It can be said that the defendant failed to discharge his burden. On considering the material on record, this court is of the opinion on one hand, the plaintiffs proved the case, on the other hand, the defendant failed to disprove the case of the plaintiffs, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed by them.

09. The material on record, clearly established that the defendant borrowed Rs.04,50,000/- under Ex.A1 promissory note, therefore, the principal amount payable is Rs.04,50,000/-. The plaintiffs claimed interest @ 24% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization. As per Ex.A1 the agreed rate of interest is 24% per annum. However, as per section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs are entitled for agreed rate of interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.04,50,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount.

10.In view of the facts and circumstances and other material on record, this court is of the opinion that this suit has merits and deserves to be decreed as discussed in the aforesaid paragraphs. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 suit amount of Rs.07,25,474/- together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree on the principal amount of Rs.04,50,000/- and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.04,50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the day of 13th day of February, 2025.

Sd/-XXXX

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendant: P.W.1:P. Uma Devi Exparte.

Documents marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dated 12.10.2018 for Rs.4,50,000/- said to be executed by the defendant in favour of P. Chandra Prakash. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 27.02.2021 Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment.

Sd/-XXXX

I ACJ(JD)/VJA

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), VIJAYAWADA.

Present:- Sri. Syed Ziyauddin,

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 13th day of February, 2025.

Original Suit No.833 of 2021

BETWEEN:

1.Prabhala Chandra Prakash, S/o. Late Rama Chandra Sastry, aged about 68 years, Retd.Employee, residing at Door No. 27-15-16, Mudda Subbaiah Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada. (Died)

2.Prabhala Uma Devi, W/o. Late Prabhala Chandra Prakash, aged about 68 years, House wife and Properties, residing at Ayodhya Nagar, Vijayawada.

3.Prabhala Ramya, W/o. J. Srinivas & D/o. Late Prabhala Chandra Prakesh, aged about 40 years, Employee, Permanent Resident of Ayodhya Nagar, Vijayawada.

(Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are added as per the orders in

I.A.No.551/2022 dated 25.07.2024) ...... Plaintiffs

AND Kuchinapudi Srinivas, S/o. Durga Rao, Employee, aged about 32 years, Govt. Employee, Working as a Junior Assistant in the O/o. Nodal Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, D.No.31-7-8, Goginenivari Street, Maruti Nagar, Vijayawada and residing at Door No: 6-212, 2nd Floor, Pattelavari Street, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada.

….. Defendant

This suit is coming on 12-02-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. S. Siva Sankara Prasad, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and the defendant was remained set exparte, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the first plaintiff for a) recovery of

Rs.07,25,474/- together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization from the defendant, b) costs of the suit and

c) other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

02.The brief averments of the plaint in nut shell are that :-

The second plaintiff is the wife and the third plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff. During the life time of the first plaintiff, the defendant for the family expenses borrowed a total amount of

Rs.04,50,000/- from him agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and in consideration thereof, the defendant executed promissory note dated 12.10.2018 in favour of the first plaintiff. In spite of several demands the defendant did not pay the amount and kept quiet.

Hence, the first plaintiff constrained to file the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died intestate on 13.09.2021 leaving behind the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 as his legal heirs to succeed his estate left behind him. Hence, the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are added as per the orders in I.A.No.551/2022 dated 25.07.2024.

03.Summons were issued to the defendant through court and registered post. The summons which were sent through registered post were returned as refused. The service of summons on the defendant is held sufficient, as the defendant is called absent, he was set ex-parte on 02.12.2024.

04.During the course of trial, P.W.1 is examined, Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked on behalf of the plaintiffs.

05. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Perused the material on record.

06.Now the point that arises for determination is: “Whether the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for suit claim amount as prayed for”?

POINT:

07. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the second plaintiff deposed evidence as Pw.1 by filing her chief-examination affidavit, Ex.A1 is the promissory note dated 12.10.2018 for Rs.4,50,000/-, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 27.2.2021. Ex,.A3 is the postal acknowledgment. Pw.1 in her evidence deposed reiterating the contents of the plaint. After considering the material on record, it is clearly established from the material on record, that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.04,50,000/- under Ex.A1 promissory note from the first plaintiff and thereafter he has not repaid the amount due to the 1st plaintiff, he filed the suit and during the pendency of the suit he died leaving behind the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 as his legal heirs, therefore, the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for the relief as prayed for. On considering the entire material on record, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs proved their case against the defendant.

08.On the other hand, the defendant did not appear before this court, not filed his written statement, not contested the suit. It can be said that the defendant failed to discharge his burden. On considering the material on record, this court is of the opinion on one hand, the plaintiffs proved the case, on the other hand, the defendant failed to disprove the case of the plaintiffs, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed by them.

09. The material on record, clearly established that the defendant borrowed Rs.04,50,000/- under Ex.A1 promissory note, therefore, the principal amount payable is Rs.04,50,000/-. The plaintiffs claimed interest @ 24% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization. As per Ex.A1 the agreed rate of interest is 24% per annum. However, as per section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs are entitled for agreed rate of interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.04,50,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount.

10.In view of the facts and circumstances and other material on record, this court is of the opinion that this suit has merits and deserves to be decreed as discussed in the aforesaid paragraphs. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 suit amount of Rs.07,25,474/- together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree on the principal amount of Rs.04,50,000/- and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.04,50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the day of 13th day of February, 2025.

Sd/-XXXX

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendant: P.W.1:P. Uma Devi Exparte.

Documents marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dated 12.10.2018 for Rs.4,50,000/- said to be executed by the defendant in favour of P. Chandra Prakash. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 27.02.2021 Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment.

Sd/-XXXX

I ACJ(JD)/VJA

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), VIJAYAWADA.

Present:- Sri. Syed Ziyauddin,

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 13th day of February, 2025.

Original Suit No.2302 of 2024

BETWEEN: Sathupati Jamalaiah, S/o. Jadaiah, aged about 62 years, Retd.Employee, resident of D.No.26-15, Akula Sambaiah Street, Ramrajya Nagar, Kabela Center,

Vijayawada. ...... Plaintiff

Vs.

Thalakola Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged about 52 years, Senior Technican (MCM) Ticket No.44579, Air Break Section, Body Shop, South Central Railway, Wagon Work shop, Guntupalli, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, NTR District.

….. Defendant

This suit is coming on 12-02-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.T. John Clymet, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant was remained set exparte, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for a) recovery of

Rs.08,60,000/- together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization from the defendant, b) costs of the suit and

c) other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

02. The brief averments of the plaint in nut shell are that :-

The defendant for the purpose of family expenses borrowed an amount of Rs.05,00,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and in consideration thereof, the defendant executed a promissory note dated 14.12.2021 for

Rs.05,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. In spite of several demands the defendant did not pay the amount. Hence, this suit.

03. Summons were issued to the defendant through court and registered post. The summons sent through court were served on the defendant. As the defendant is called absent, he was set ex-parte on 05.02.2025.

04.During the course of trial, P.W.1 is examined; Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff.

05.Heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

06.Now the point for determination is

“Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim

amount as prayed for”?

07. Point : In order to prove the case of plaintiff, he deposed evidence as P.W.1 by filing his chief-examination-affidavit, Exs.A.1 to A3 are marked through him. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note dated 14.12.2021 for Rs.05,00,000/-. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal otice

dated 19.8.2024 along with postal receipt. Ex.A3 is the un-served R.P.

Cover. Pw.1 in his evidence deposed reiterating the contents of the plaint. After considering the material on record, it is clearly established from the material on record, that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.05,00,000/- under Ex.A1 promissory note from the plaintiff and thereafter he has not repaid the amount due to the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed by him. On considering the entire material on record, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff proved his case against the defendant.

08. On the other hand, the defendant did not appear before this court, not filed his written statement and not contested the suit. It can be said that the defendant failed to discharge his burden. On considering the material on record, this court is of the opinion on one hand, the plaintiff proved his case, on the other hand, the defendant failed to disprove the case of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed by him.

09.The material on record, clearly established that the defendant borrowed Rs.05,00,000/- under Ex.A1 promissory note, therefore, the principal amount payable is Rs.05,00,000/-. The plaintiff claimed interest @ 24% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization. As per Ex.A1 the agreed rate of interest is 24% per annum. However, as per section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff is entitled for agreed rate of interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.05,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount.

10.In view of the facts and circumstances and other material on record, this court is of the opinion that this suit has merits and deserves to be decreed as discussed in the aforesaid paragraphs. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

11. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff suit amount of Rs.08,60,000/- together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree on the principal amount of Rs.05,00,000/- and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.05,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the day of 13th day of February, 2025.

Sd/-XXXX

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE ( JUNIOR DIVISION),

VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: P.W.1:S. Jamalaiah Exparte.

Documents marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dated 14.12.2021 for --Nill-- Rs.5,00,000/- said to be executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 19.08.2024 along with postal receipts. Ex.A3: Unserved RP cover.

Sd/-XXXX

I ACJ(JD)/VJA