Miss. V.Devi Sai Srivani

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PUTTAPARTHY

PRESENT: Smt. V.D.S.Sri Vani, Junior Civil Judge, Puttaparthy, Tuesday, the 06thday of October, 2020.

O.S.No.170 of 2018

(Old O.S.No.74/2015 on the file of JCJ, Penukonda)

Between : G.Venkata Prasanna, age 46 years, S/o.G.Adeppa, R/o. Dhupam Palli (v), H/o.Siddarampuram, Bukkapatnam Mandal.

Ananthapuramu District. ....... Plaintiff

And

Nadiminti Pullappa, age 45 years, S/o.N.Kullayappa, R/o.Lingappagari palli village, H/o.Siddarampuram, Bukkapatnam Mandal,

Ananthapuram District. ....... Defendant

This suit, coming on 18.03.2020 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri P.Prasad advocate for the defendant who was having set exparte and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

Suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.34,090/-, being principal and interest due and pronote along with subsequent interest on the principal sum of Rs.20,000/- at the contract rate interest of 24% per annum from the date of suit to the date of realization and costs of the suit on the foot of a promissory note.

2. The avernment of plaint in brief as follows:

a.Sole plaintiff, herein alleged that sole defendant herein borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from her and executed a promissory note in her (plaintiff) favour on 29.07.2012 by promising to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

b. Inspite of her (plaintiff) legal notice, dt.15.06.2015 and also repeated demands to discharge the debt, the defendant failed to repay the said amount with interest as agreed upon. Hence the suit.

3. Sole defendant filed written statement by pleading, in brief, as follows:

The defendant denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff.

Defendant submits that, he has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and not executed any pronote. The defendant further submitted that, to claim excess interest, the plaintiff described him as businessman. The respondent submits that he is an agricultural coolie. There is no cause of action and plaintiff filed this unjust suit for wrongful gain. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

i. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and

binding on the defendant ?

ii. Whether plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed

for ?

iii. To what relief ?

5.In trial, plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he exhibited suit promissory note as Ex.A1 to A3. Though, defendant filed his written statement, inspite of sufficient time given, except doing cross examination of plaintiff witnesses, no evidence was adduced on his behalf in the form of chief affidavit and no witness was examined on his behalf. Hence defence evidence is treated as nil.

6.Heard the councel for the plaintiff on 18.03.2020 and no arguments were submitted on behalf of defendant.

7.The advocate for the plaintiff reiterated the facts mentioned supra, and the evidence on record during the course of arguments.

ISSUE No.1:

8.PW.1 in his chief testified that,

He filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. He reitreated the same facts mentioned in his plaint. Through PW.1 suit promissory note is marked as Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice.

During cross examination of PW.1 he deposed that he knew the defendant since 15 years. He further testified that defendant borrowed Rs.20,000/- under Ex,A1. He denied of creating and fabricating Ex.A1.

In support of plaintiff’s evidence, one of the attestors of suit promissory note was examined as PW.2. PW.2 in his chief examination testified that defendant scribed the suit promissory note. Himself and one

D.M.Ravi attested the suit promissory note. During cross examination of

PW.2 he deposed that at the time of exeution of suit promissory note, himself, PW.1 and defendant were present. The suit promissory note was executed in the house of plaintiff. He denied of colluding with PW.1.

9.In this connection, the following observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case, Vidyadhar Vs. Manik Rao, reported in 1999 (3) ALT 1 is worth noticeable :

“Where a party to the suit does not appear

into the witness box and state his own case on

oath and does not offer himself to be cross-

examined by the other side, a presumption

would arise that the case set-up by him is not

correct.”

10.The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 which is suit pronote, shows that the amount is borrowed by the defendant who executed the said pronote in favour of the plaintiff. The evidence of PW.2 is also in favour of plaintiff. The defendant made mere allegations without producing any documentary evidence. The defendant has also not produced any evidence to show that he is an agriculturist. The documents submitted by the plaintiff shows the liability of the defendant which is claimed by the plaintiff in the instant suit. Accordingly issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE No.2:

11.In view of the findings in issue No.1, this point is also answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE No.3:

12.Hence the suit is liable to be decreed.

13.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for an amount of Rs.34,090/- together with further interest at 12% per annum from the date of filling of the suit till the date of the decree and thereby subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the

principal amount of Rs.20,000/- from the date of decree till the date of

realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer, directly typed on computer,

corrected and pronounced by me through Blue Jeans video calling application, this the 06 th day of October, 2020.

Junior Civil Judge, Puttaparthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1:G.Venkata Prasanna- N ONE –

PW.2:K.Hanuman Nagendra

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Original suit promissory note Ex.A-129.07.2012: Office copy of Legal Notice Ex.A215.06.2015: The served postal acknowledgement. Ex.A3---:

FOR DEFENDANT : - Nil -

J.C.J. P.T.P.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PUTTAPARTHY

Present : Smt V.D.S.Srivani, Junior Civil Judge

Thursday, the 01 st day of October, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.108/2019

Between:-

1. Chilla Madhappa, S/o Late C.Mudhappa, Aged about 68 years, Chendrayunipalli village of Bukkapatnam mandal

2. Chilla Krishnaiah, S/o Late Chilla Chendrayudu, Aged about 65 years, Chendrayunipalli village of Bukkapatnam mandal.

3. Chilla Kesappa, S/o Late Chilla Chennappa, Aged about 66 years, Siddarampuram village of Bukkapatnam mandal

4. Chilla Chandrayudu, S/o Late Chilla Chandrayudu, Aged about 38 years, Dupampalli village of Bukkapatnam mandal.

.. Plaintiffs

And

1. Tangim Kesappa, S/o Late T.Narayana, Aged about 58 years,

2. Tangim Anjineyulu, S/o T.Chinnaganganna, Aged about 66 years,

3. Tangim Gangadri, S/o T.Chandrayudu, Aged about 42years, D1 to D3 are Residents of Kothakota village of Bukkapatnam mandal.

4. Tangim Nagabhushana, S/o T.Kesappa, Aged about 38 years, Chendrayunipalli village.

5. Tangim Gopal, S/o Late Eranna, Aged about 40 years, Yerronipalli village of C.K.Palli mandal.

6. Tangim Kristappa, S/o Late T.Gangappa, Aged about 60 years, Gunipalli village of Bukkapatnam mandal.

7. The Assistant Commissioner, Endowment Department, Ananthapuramu.

8. The Executive Officer, Group of Temples, Bukkapatnam mandal.

..Defendants

This suit coming on 01.10.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and for the Sri M.Rajendra Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the defendant No.1 to 6 and Sri. A.Kristappa, Assistant Government Pleader for the D7 and D8, upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and defendants and on perusing the material available on record this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Suit for grant of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 to 6 restraining them, their men and agents from interfering with the archakatvam of the plaintiffs in Chendrayuni Swamy

Temple for performing poojas and possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for suit costs.

On 01-10-2020 today. IA.No.113 & 114 of 2020 on payment of cost and same is disposed of permitting for withdrawal of suit.

In the result, this suit is disposed of and as withdrawn by the plaintiff.

Typed my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 01st day of October, 2020.

Junior Civil Judge, Puttaparthy.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

NIL

J.C.J., P.T.P.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PUTTAPARTHY

Present: Kum. V.D.Sai Sri Vani,

Junior Civil Judge, Puttaparthy

Case No. :OS/0000501/2018

Dandagala Ramanjineyulu Versus A.Subramanayam

Date : 03-10-2020

Business: Both parties called present they arrived at compromises voluntary as per agreed terms and conditions in the resutl this suit is settled before virtuval lok adalath Nature of Disposal: Settled Lok Adalath Disposal Date: 3-10-2020

Kum. V.D.Sai Sri Vani Junior Civil Judge