Sri T.Venkateswarlu

1

O.S.No.278/2019 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI

PRESENT:Sri T. Venkateswarlu,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki.

Thursday, Fourteenth [14 th ] day of July, 2022

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 278 of 2019

Between:

Amisigadda Siva Prasad … Plaintif

And

Nakka Srinivasa Rao … Defendant

This Suit, has come before me on 14.07.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Hayagrivachari and Sri B.Nagachari, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri K.Ramesh, Advocate for defendant and upon perusing the entire material available on record and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:-

JUDGMENT

01.Plaintiff filed the Suit against the defendant to recover an amount of Rs.2,47,658/- being the principal and interest due under theree Promissory notes for Rs.35,000/- dated 15.10.2016, Rs.72,000/-

dated 09.03.2017 and Rs.60,000/- dated 09.03.2017 and for

subsequent interest and Costs of the Suit.

02. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

The defendant borrowed the amounts of Rs.35,000/- on 15.10.2016, Rs.72,000/- on 09.03.2017 and Rs.60,000/- on 09.03.2017 for his agricultural expenses from the plaintiff and executed the promissory notes three in number infavour of the plaintiff undertaking to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24 % per annum either 2

O.S.No.278/2019 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki

to him or his order on demand and later inspite of several demands made by him the defendant did not choose to clear the same and postponed the same on some pretext or the other. The plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on 21.09.2019 demanding him for payment of debt with interest and the same was received by him and maintaining silence. Hence, the suit.

03. The defendant filed his written statement denying

the allegations stated in the plaint and specifically pleaded that

he borrowed three promissory notes amounts mentioned in the plaint and executed three promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff, the family of the plaintiff and defendant lived together as family members having confidence on each other the amounts borrowed by the defendant, he used to pay amounts now, he noted the particulars of payments and the nature of payments in his dairy, the entries of his dairy will show that he paid an amount of Rs.53,650/- towards the promissory note debt in the name of mother of plaintiff by name

Amisegadda Siva Parvathi who look after family affairs of the plaintiff.

The defendant paid an amount of Rs.44,700/- towards promissory notes debt on various dates mentioned in the dairy maintained by him.

He further stated that as he is an agriculturist the suit debt has got to be scaled down under law, the plaintiff is not entitled to clam the entire suit amount and prays to dismiss the suit with Costs.

04.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues settled for trial :- 3

O.S.No.278/2019 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki

01. Whether the suit promissory notes three in number dated 15.10.2016 for Rs.35,000/-, 09.03.2017 for Rs.72,000/- and 09.03.2017 for Rs.60,000/- are true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

02. Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the

suit amount as prays for ?

03. To what relief ?

05.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 . Thereafter when the matter is posted for cross examination of PW.1 on 12.07.2022 at that stage the defendant is called absent and no representation on his behalf for cross examination of PW.1 it shows that the defendant is not having any interest to proceed the matter further, hence cross examination of PW.1 is recorded as Nil on behalf of the defendant, counsel the plaintiff is reported as no further evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff side evidence was closed and posted for defendant side evidence on 14.07.2022, on 14.07.2022 the defendant side evidence is closed as there is no response on his behalf and proceeded the matter further.

06.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the entire material available on record.

07. ISSUE Nos.1 and 2:-

01. Whether the suit promissory notes three in number dated 15.10.2016 for Rs.35,000/-, 09.03.2017 for Rs.72,000/- and 09.03.2017 for Rs.60,000/- are true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

4

O.S.No.278/2019 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki

02. Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the

suit amount as prays for ?

Since the issue Nos.1 and 2 are inter related and inter connected with each other, both issues were taken together for discussion in order to avoid repetition.

08.This suit is based on the promissory note. The law regarding to burden of proof as to execution of promissory note is well settled principle of law and the initial burden lies on the holder of the promissory notes to prove their execution and consideration. Once the execution is proved the burden shifts on the defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiff. In a case reported in 1999 (3) ALT 144 in

between Ponugupati Subba Rao Vs. Sikhakollu Pulla Rao

wherein the Honourable High court held that,

The learned Judge relied on a Judgment of this

Court being B.Veeramma Vs. V.T.V. Rangachary

1997(3) APLJ 39 (SN) whereby it has been laid

down that after the initial burden of proving the

document is discharged by the plaintif the onus

proving the document othersise shifts to the

defendant. Section 118 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act lays down the conditions in which

the presumptions shall be made Under Section

118(g) there is a presumption in favour of the

plaintif that he is the holder indue course unless

proved contrary and the presumption shall not

survive if it is proved that the document was in the

holder by means of ofence or fraud or had been

obtained from the maker or asceptor thereof by

means of an ofence or fraud. In a Judgment by

Supreme Court in Bharat Barrel and Drum

Manufacturing Company V.Amin Chand Payrelal,

1999(2) supreme 187, while interpreting Section

118(a) the Court held that, after the initial burden

is discharged by the plaintif of showing that the

5

O.S.No.278/2019 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki

document was executed the burden shifts to the

defendant.

In the present suit also the plaintiff being the PW1 has categorically testified that the defendant executed the Exs.A1 to A3 suit promissory notes three in number on 15.10.2016 for Rs.35,000/-, 09.03.2017 for Rs.72,000/- and 09.03.2017 for Rs.60,000/- in his favour and passing consideration of Rs.35,000/-, Rs.72,000/- and

Rs.60,000/- from him to the defendant agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24 % per annum . Accordingly, the plaintiff had discharged his initial burden to the defendant. As the plaintiff discharged his initial burden the burden shifted to the defendant to prove his case as per his pleadings.

09.According to Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, the burden of proof in a Suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. In the case on hand, the plaintiff adduced his oral and documentary evidence on his behalf to prove his case but the defendant absolutely failed to adduce his side evidence by entering into the witness box for which in a case reported in AIR 1999 (SC) 1441 between Vidyadhar Vs. Manik rao and Anr wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India at para

No.16 held that,

“Where a party to the suit does not appear into

the witness box and states his own case on oath

and does not ofer himself to be cross examined by

the other side, a presumption would arise that the

case set up by him is not correct as has been held

in a series of decisions passed by various High

6

O.S.No.278/2019 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki

Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the

decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial

Singh and Anr. . This was followed by the Lahore

High Court in Kirpa Singh Vs. Ajaipal Singh and

Ors. AIR (1930) Lahore 1 and the Bombay High

Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v.

Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh AIR (1931)

Bombay 97. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in

Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh

Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy Council

decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case

(supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh

v. Virender Nath and Anr. held that if a party

abstains from entering the witness box, it would

give rise to an inference adverse against him.

Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab &

Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan

Chand and Ors. , drew a presumption under

Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party

who did not enter into the witness box.”

In the case on hand the plaintiff has proved his case by adducing oral and documentary evidence. The case of the defendant specifically stated in his written statement that he admitted about receiving the suit promissory note amounts and later he paid an amounts of Rs.53,650/- and Rs.44,700/- towards promissory notes debts and the same was endorsed in his dairy and he is ready to pay balance amount to the plaintiff, to harass him only the plaintiff filed this suit due to misunderstandings between them. To prove the case of the defendant he did not appear before this Court and he did not cross-examine the PW.1. It is for the defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiff as the pleas taken by him in his written statement to disprove the case of the plaintiff but he absolutely failed to do so. The 7

O.S.No.278/2019 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki

facts of the aforesaid verdict are applicable to the present facts of the case on hand.

10.Thus, from the foregoing discussion this Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence of the PW.1 coupled with the

Exs.A1 to A6 established the case of the plaintiff and the Exs.A1 to A3 suit promissory notes three in number dated 15.10.2016 for

Rs.35,000/-, 09.03.2017 for Rs.72,000/- and 09.03.2017 for Rs.60,000/- are true, valid and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the Suit amount from the defendant as prayed for.

Accordingly, issue Nos.1 and 2 were answered infavour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

11. ISSUE NO.3 :-

To what relief ?

In view of the finding on issues Nos.1 and 2, the Suit is liable to be decreed with Costs as prayed for.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the

defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,47,658/- (Rupees Two lakhs forty

seven thousands six hundreds and fifty eight only) and

subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the

date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and with future

interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of decree

till the date of realization on the principal amounts of

Rs.35,000/- dated 15.10.2016 for Ex.A1, Rs.72,000/- dated

8

O.S.No.278/2019 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki

09.03.2017 for Ex.A2 and Rs.60,000/- dated 09.03.2017 for

Ex.A3.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 14 th day of July,

2022.

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

PW1 : Amisigadda Siva Prasad

EXHIBITIS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: Original Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.35,000/-, dated 15.10.2016.

Ex.A2: Original Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.72,000/-, dated 09.03.2017.

Ex.A3: Original Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.60,000/-, dated 09.03.2017.

Ex.A4: Office copy of the legal notice issued to the defendant by the plaintiff, dated 21.09.2019.

Ex.A5: Postal receipt dated 21.09.2019 in connection with the Ex.A.4.

Ex.A6: Served acknowledgement of the defendant.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

- NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

- NIL -

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ADDANKI.

9

O.S.No.278/2019 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki

// True copy //

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI.

1

O.S.No.158/2022 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI

PRESENT :Sri T. Venkateswarlu,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki.

Tuesday, the twelveth [12 th ] day of July, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 158 of 2022

Between:

Canara Bank, Santhamaguluru Branch (Syndicate Bank) represented by its Branch Manager.… Plaintif

And

01. Pulipati Gnana Sundaramma

02. Kulli Venkaiah … Defendants

This suit, has come before me for final hearing on 12.07.2022, in the presence of Sri P.L.N.Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants are remained set exparte; and upon hearing the Advocate for plaintiff; and upon perusing the entire material available on record, and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

JUDGMENT

01.Plaintiff bank filed the Suit for recovery of Rs.1,52,871.76

Ps, directing the defendants to pay the said amount within the time stipulated for redemption if fails order for sale of the plaint schedule property under Order 34 of Civil Procedure Code and in case the amount derived after sale of the plaint schedule property is not sufficient to satisfy the decree amount permit the plaintiff bank to proceed against the other properties of the defendants and for Costs of the Suit.

02. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

On 26.02.2016 the first defendant for her agricultural land development approached the plaintiff bank for loan by submitting 2

O.S.No.158/2022 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki.

application along with her particulars of the assests as well as her guarantor/co-obligant that is the second defendant. After satisfying with the particulars furnished by the first defendant the plaintiff bank sanctioned loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on the same day after execution of receipt in its favour by both the defendants. The first defendant executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank for agricultural advances. The second defendant executed an agreement of guarantee agreeing to stand as surety for loan of the first defendant. The first defendant handed over the title deed book to the plaintiff bank standing in her name which includes plaint schedule properties. On 27.07.2015 the first defendant has executed registered simple mortgage deed (Document No.11546/2015 of the Joint S.R.O,

Narasaraopet) in respect of item Nos.1 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff Bank as security for due repayment of loan amount. Later, inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff bank except acknowledging their liability by executing debt acknowledgment letters dated 17.02.2018 and 31.03.2020 the defendants have failed to discharge the debt. The plaintiff bank got issued legal notice to the defendants on 13.12.2021 demanding them to discharge the debt due under the loan account, the same was received by them but there is no response from them. Hence, the

Suit.

03.The defendants are set exparte on 15.06.2022 after receipt of summons on 13.05.2022.

3

O.S.No.158/2022 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki.

04.To prove the case of the plaintiff the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A12 . On behalf of defendants none were examined and no documents were marked since they were set exparte on 15.06.2022.

05.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the entire material available on record.

06.Now the Points for consideration are :

01. Whether the Plaintif bank is entitled the suit amount from the defendants as prayed for ?

02. To what relief ?

07. POINT No.1:-

The branch manager of the plaintiff bank as P.W.1 in his evidence reiterated the averments mentioned in plaint and prays to pass preliminary decree and judgment in his favour. Ex.A1 is the true copy of Notification reveals that Syndicate Bank amalgating into

Carana Bank under the scheme, 2020 and the same is came into force on 01.04.2020. Ex.A2 reveals that the first defendant approached the plaintiff bank for loan of Rs.2,00,000/- by executing the documents under Exs.A3, A5 and A6 which are agreement of agricultural advances, Original title deed book of the first defendant relating to her land holdings and original registered simple mortgage deed in respect of Item Nos.1 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties as a security for her loan amount. Ex.A4 reveals that the second defendant stood as guarantor relating to the loan of the first defendant. Exs.A7 and A8 reveals that defendant Nos.1 and 2 4

O.S.No.158/2022 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki.

executed debt acknowledgment letters infavour of plaintiff bank on 17.02.2018 and 31.03.2020. Ex.A.9 is the office copy of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 demanding them to discharge the loan amount to the plaintiff bank.

Ex.A10 reveals that the first defendant received legal notice. Ex.A11 reveals that the second defendant received legal notice. Ex.A.12 reveals that the ledger account of first defendant maintained by the plaintiff bank.

08.The evidence of the P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A12 makes clear that the first defendant obtained loan amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank by executing simple mortgage deed and second defendant stood as guarantor for the said loan and later both the defendants did not discharge the said loan amount to the plaintiff bank and dragon the matter with malafide intention and hence the plaintiff bank proved the suit claim and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the suit claim and the plaintiff bank is entitled the suit amount from the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as prayed for.

Accordingly, the point is answered infavour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Nos.1 and 2.

09. POINT No.2:-

Since the Point No.1 is answered that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and hence suit is liable to be decreed preliminary with Costs as prayed for.

5

O.S.No.158/2022 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki.

In the result, this Suit is decreed with Costs by

passing preliminary decree directing the defendant Nos.1 and 2

to pay a sum of Rs.1,52,871.76 Ps. (Rupees One lakh fifty two

thousands eight hundreds and seventy one and seventy six

paise only) to the plaintif jointly and severally together with

interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till

the date of decree and with future interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the

suit claim of Rs.1,52,871.76 Ps. and in default of payment of

decree amount the plaintif is entitled to apply for final decree

for sale of mortgage property that is item Nos.1 to 4 of the

plaint schedule properties. The time of redemption is fixed for 6

months from the date of this decree.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 12 th day of July,

2022.

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

P.W.1 : Maddala Lakshmi Narayana

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OT THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1:True copy of the notification, amalgamating Syndicate Bank into Canara Bank under the Scheme, 2020 that came into force on 1st day of April, 2020 dated 04.03.2020.

Ex.A2:Application of the first defendant given to the plaintiff bank for loan showing the particulars of her assets as well as assets of her guarantor that is second defendant

dated 26.02.2016.

6

O.S.No.158/2022 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki.

Ex.A3 :Agreement of agricultural advances executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank relating to the loan dated 26.02.2016. Ex.A4 :Agreement of guarantee executed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank relating to the loan of the first defendant dated 26.02.2016.

Ex.A5 :Original title deed book of the first defendant relating to the first defendant land holdings.

Ex.A6:Original registered simple Mortgage deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank in respect of Item Nos.1 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties as a security for her loan amount dated 27.07.2015.

Ex.A7 :Debt acknowledgment letter executed by the both defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank dated 17.02.2018.

Ex.A8 :Debt acknowledgment letter executed by the both defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank dated 31.03.2020.

Ex.A9 :Office copy of registered lawyer’s notice issued to both the defendants by the plaintiff bank dated 13.12.2021.

Ex.A10 :Served postal acknowledgment of the first defendant in connection with the Ex.A9.

Ex.A11 :Served postal acknowledgment of the second defendant in connection with the Ex.A9.

Ex.A12 :Account copy maintained by the plaintiff bank relating to the loan of the first defendant bearing account No.36788230000371 dated 20.01.2022.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

NIL.

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI.

// True copy //

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI.

1

O.S.No.138/2014 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI

Present :Sri T. Venkateswarlu,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki.

Friday, the Fifteenth [15 th ] day of July, 2022.

O.S.138/2014

Between :

Monapati Venkateswarlu … Plaintif

And

01. Madala Ramanjaneyulu

02. Madala Raghavaiah

03. Madala Subba Rao

04. Madala Veeramma (died)

Defendants 1 to 3 are recognized as L.Rs of deceased fourth defendant as per the memo dated 17.04.2018.… Defendants

This suit is filed for

a) for specific performance of the suit agreement of sale dated 20.08.1993 directing the defendants to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff or his nominee in respect of suit schedule property on due stamps at his expense, within the time granted by this Court and in the event of their failure to comply with said direction, to have the same done through process of the Court.

b) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and their agents from in any way interfering with the plaint schedule property and for Costs of the Suit.

This Suit, has come before me for trial in the presence of Sri J.Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri M.Subhash Babu and Sri M.Chandra Sekhar, Advocates for defendant Nos.1 to 3, defendant No.4 is died and upon perusing the entire material available on record, and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

JUDGMENT

Costs of Rs.100/- is not paid. The counsel for the plaintiff is reported as party may be called. Plaintiff is called absent and no representation on his behalf. It shows that the plaintiff is not having 2

O.S.No.138/2014 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki.

any interest to proceed the matter further. Hence, this Suit is dismissed for default without Costs.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 15 th day of

July, 2022.

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI.

// True copy //

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI.

1

O.S.No.24/2015 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI

Present :Sri T. Venkateswarlu,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki.

Friday, the Fifteenth [15 th ] day of July, 2022.

O.S.24/2015

Between :

Kanaparthi Peda Anji Reddy … Plaintif

And

Pulikam China Venkatewara Reddy… Defendant

This suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from in any way interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for Costs of the Suit.

This Suit, has come before me for trial in the presence of Sri V.Anji Reddy and Sri K.Subba Rao, Advocates for the Plaintiff and of Sri P.L.N.Prasad, Advocate for defendant and upon perusing the entire material available on record, and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

JUDGMENT

Sri T.Martha Srinu, Advocate represented on behalf of Sri VAR reported as party may be called. Plaintiff is called absent and no representation on his behalf. It shows that the plaintiff is not having any interest to proceed the matter further. Hence, this Suit is dismissed for default without Costs.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 15 th day of

July, 2022.

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI.

2

O.S.No.24/2015 P.J.C.J.Court, Addanki.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

Sd/- T.Venkateswarlu

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI.

// True copy //

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADDANKI.