Smt.V.Satya Lakshmi Prasanna

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT

CHILAKALURIPET .

Present: Sri B. Devendra Reddy,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

Friday, this the 24th day of February, 2023.

OS No.112/2019

Between:-

Galla Srinivasa Rao .… Plaintif

AND

Meka Baji ... Defendant

This suit came before me on 10.02.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Ramakrsihna, Advocate for plaintif and of Sri

R.Ananda Rao, Advocate for defendant, upon hearing the arguments of both sides side counsels, and upon perusing the material papers on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

[1.] This is a suit filed on behalf of plaintif against the defendant with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs.56,000/- being the principle and interest said to be due basing on promissory note, dated 01.10.2016 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif having borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

[2.]The brief averments of plaint are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.35,000/- from the plaintif on 01.10.2016 for his family expenses and executed the suit promissory note for the said amount in favour of the plaintif at Unnava village, Edlapadu Mandal, 2

Guntur District on the even date agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum to the plaintif or his order on demand. It is further averred that subsequently the plaintif requested the defendant number of occasions to repay the above said amount Rs.35,000/- with interest personally through mediators, but the defendant evading the payment on one pretext or the other. The plaintif got issued a legal notice on 19.04.2019 through his advocate to the defendant and his family members and one Talluri Sadasiva Rao through the registered

Post, even after that the defendant had not repayed the suit promissory note amount. Hence the suit.

[3.]The defendant filed his written statement denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended that the allegations that defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- or any amount from the plaintif is false without exception. It is further averred that there is no creditor and debtor relationship between the parties. There is no contract of money transactions between the parties.

The plaintif is put to strict proof of the fact any debt due from defendant. It is further averred that father of defendant fell ill during 2013. The defendant was in need of money during 2013. Then defendant approached plaintif in 2013 for loan facility for a sum of

Rs.15,000/-. But plaintif put a condition that defendant must sign on a blank promissory note. Therefore, due to bad position of defendant and because his father is not well and hospitalized, the defendant parted his with signature on a blank promissory note. The stamp of the said promissory note was of the year 2013.

i) It is further averred that there is no money transaction dated 01.10.2016. The stamp afixed to the suit promissory note is not of the year 2016. The defendant is served upon xerox copy of 3 the suit promissory note. So, that the defendant is not able to decide whether the signature on the xerox copy of the promissory note is of him or not. It is therefore submitted there is no contract of debt dated 01.10.2016 in between the parties.

ii) It is further averred that defendant is an auto driver, his father is cultivator. Their family got Ac.0.59 cents landed property. It is submitted the legal notice was prepared in the year 2018 but was not sent. The defendant besides his younger brother and their father sold their property of Ac.0.59 cents in April, 2019. The plaintif approached the court knowing well that the property in the suit in

I.A.368/19 was already sold. Therefore the suit mentioned property or the I.A mentioned property is not the property of this defendant. The attachment orders obtained are not bona fide. The plaintif did not say facts before this court. As such the plaintif filed this suit because defendant sold his property suppressing that there is no suit transaction of the year 2016. The other allegations not admitted herein are specifically the plaintif is put to strict of the same. It is further averred that the scribe and attestors appearing on the xerox copy of the suit promissory note are employed persons by the plaintif but not otherwise. They are only interested in plaintif but not for facts. This suit is bad because it is not filed against the party who already became owner of the property covered in I.A.368/2014. The defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

[4.] Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial;

1) Whether the suit promissory note dated 01.10.2016 is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the plaintif is entitled for the suit claim with 4 interest as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

[5.] During the course of trial the plaintif himself is examined as P.W1, and 1st and 2nd attestors are examined as PW2 and

PW.3 and got marked suit promissory note as Ex.A1 and also got marked Exs.A2 to A4. On behalf of defendant, defendant himself is examined as DW1 and no documents are marked.

[6.] Heard the arguments of both side counsels. Perused the material on record.

ISSUE No1: Whether the suit promissory note dated 01.10.2016

is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the

defendant ?

[7.]Since the suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of Rs.56,000/- being the principle and interest said to be due by the defendant basing on promissory note said to be executed by the defendant on 01.10.2016 having borrowed a sum of

Rs.35,000/-, the burden lies on the plaintif to establish that he passed consideration to the defendant under Ex.A1 promissory note and it was executed by the defendant in his favour.

[8.]In order to establish the said fact the plaintif himself is examined as Pw.1 and he filed his chief examination afidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint that on 01.10.2016 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- and he executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum in the presence of scribe and attestor, later, he did not 5 discharge the suit promissory note amount, hence he filed the suit, he prayed to grant decree in his favour.

[9.]In the cross examination PW.1 denied a suggestion that the defendant has not borrowed Rs.35,000/- on 01.10.2016 and he did not execute Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour and Ex.A1 promissory note was fabricated one by forging the signature of defendant with the assistance of attestors and scribe. PW.1 further stated that he lent amount to the defendant at his house, at that time, himself, defendant scribe and attestors were present at 11.00 am., on 01.10.2016. Even PW.1 is cross examined nothing material is elicited in favour of defendant and to discard his testimony. PW.1 consistently stated in the cross examination what he deposed in the chief examination.

[10.]In support of the evidence of PW.1, the 1st attestor of

Ex.A.1 promissory note is examined as PW.2 he deposed that on 01.10.2016 the defendant borrowed Rs.35,000/- from the plaintif and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % per annum. He further deposed that he signed as an attestor on Ex.A1 promissory note and the entire transaction under Ex.A1 promissory note was taken place in his presence between plaintif and defendant. In the cross examination

PW.2 denied a suggestion that the defendant did not borrow Rs.35,000/- on 01.10.2016 from the plaintif and he did not execute Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintif. PW.2 further deposed that one

Sambaiah is the 2nd attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note and it was scribed by one Hemanth Narayana and in their presence entire transaction had taken place between the plaintif and defendant under 6

Ex.A1 promissory note. Even Pw.2 is cross examined nothing material is elicited in favour of the defendant and to discard the testimony of PW.2.

PW.2 consistently stated in the cross examination what he deposed in the chief examination. The evidence of PW.2 is corroborating with the evidence of PW.1 in all aspects.

[11.]In support of the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, the plaintif also examined 2nd attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note as PW.3.

He deposed that on 01.10.2016 the defendant borrowed Rs.35,000/- from the plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintif. PW.3 further deposed that he, PW.2 are the attestors of Ex.A1 promissory note and it was scribed by one Hemanth Narayana. He further deposed that the entire transaction under Ex.A1 promissory note was taken place between the plaintif and defendant under Ex.A1 promissory note in their presence. In the cross examination Pw.3 denied a suggestion that the defendant did not borrow Rs.35,000/- on 01.10.2016 from the plaintif and he did not execute Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintif in his presence and in the presence of another attestor/PW.2 and scribe Hemanth Narayana. PW.3 further stated that 2nd attestor /

PW.2, scribe and defendant signed on Ex.A1 promissory note in his presence. Even PW.3 is cross examined nothing material is elicited in favour of the defendant and to discard his testimony. PW.3 consistently stated in the cross examination what he deposed in the chief examination. The evidence of PW.3 is corroborating with the evidence of

Pws.1 and 2 in all aspects.

[12.]In support of the evidence of Pws. 1 to 3, the plaintif got marked the suit promissory note as Ex.A1. A perusal of Ex.A1 it 7 discloses that the defendant borrowed Rs.35,000/- from the plaintif and he executed it in favour of plaintif. Ex.A1 promissory note further discloses that the defendant received cash of Rs.35,000/- from the plaintif. Ex.A1 further discloses that it contains the signatures of defendant as a borrower, Pws.2, 3 as attestors and Hemanth Narayana as scribe. The contents of Ex.A1 promissory note support the evidence of Pws.1 to 3. The plaintif also got marked the legal notice as Ex.A.2, to establish that he got issued legal notice to the defendant and his family members. As perusal of Ex.A.2 legal notice it discloses that the plaintif got issued to the defendant and his family members demanding them to pay the suit promissory note amount. To establish that the said legal notice was sent to the defendant and his family members by the plaintif, the plaintif got marked EXs.A.3 postal receipts and Ex.A.4 acknowledgments. The above Exs.A.3 and A4 establishes that the plaintif sent legal notice to the defendant and his family members.

Even after issuance of said Ex.A.2 legal notice to the defendant and his family members, the defendant did not repay the suit promissory note amount. So, from the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.A1 promissory note it can be said that the defendant borrowed Rs.35,000/- from the plaintif and he executed it in favour of plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, later the defendant did not discharge the said amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note.

[13.]To rebut the evidence adduced by the plaintif, the defendant himself is examined as DW.1, he filed his chief examination afidavit by reiterating the contents of the written statement. The main contention of the defendant in the written statement and also the evidence of D.W.1/defendant is that he had borrowed Rs.15,000/- from the plaintif in 2013, at that time the plaintif obtained blank promissory 8 note, no money transaction on 01.10.2016 was taken place under Ex.A1 promissory note and prayed to dismiss the suit. In the cross- examination D.W.1/defendant denied a suggestion that he borrowed

Rs.35,000/- on 01-10-2016 from the plaintif and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of plaintif. Even though, the defendant had taken a plea and denied the said suggestion, he did not state on which date and month he had borrowed Rs.15,000/- from the plaintif in the year 2013. The defendant had not stated in whose presence he had given blank promissory note to the plaintif in the year 2013 and he did not state on which date he had discharged the said amount of

Rs.15,000/- to the plaintif. If really the plaintif had not returned blank signed promissory note said to be given by the defendant to the plaintif at the time of alleged borrowing Rs.15,000/- and discharged the said amount to the plaintif what prevented the defendant to issue legal notice to the plaintif demanding him to return the said alleged blank promissory note. Since the defendant had not given any legal notice to the plaintif demanding him to return the alleged signed blank promissory note said to be given by the defendant to the plaintif, it can be said that the defendant had not borrowed Rs.15,000/- in the year 2013 from the plaintif and plaintif had not obtained signed blank promissory note from the defendant. Even though, the defendant himself is examined as DW.1, his evidence does not inspire confidence that he did not borrow Rs.35,000/- from the plaintif on 01-10-2016 and he did not execute suit promissory note in favour of plaintif and not supported by consideration. Since the plaintif by examining himself as

PW.1 and also by examining attestors of Ex.A.1 promissory note as

Pws.2 and 3 and by marking the suit promissory note as Ex.A1 successfully proved that the suit promissory note is true , valid and binding on the defendant and consideration was passed by the plaintif 9 to the defendant under the suit promissory note. Hence the issue is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

ISSUE No.2 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim

with interest as prayed for ?

[14.]In view of the foregoing reasons on issue No.1, this court holds that the plaintif is entitled for the suit claim with interest.

Hence, the issue is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

ISSUE No.3 : To what relief ?

[15.] In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.56,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs.35,000/- from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24th day of February, 2023.

sd/- B.Devendra Reddy,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,Narasaraopet. FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for:

Plaintif:Defendant:

P.W.1: Galla Srinivasa RaoDW.1 : Meka Baji PW.2: Eagitila Kondala Rao PW.3: Galla Sambaiah

Documents marked for Plaintif:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dated 01.10.2016 for Rs.35,000/-.

Ex.A2: Ofice copy of legal notice dated 19.04.2019.

10

Ex.A3: Postal receipts (3) in number.

Ex.A4: Postal acknowledgments (3 in number).

Documents marked for defendant: Nil

sd/- B.Devendra Reddy,

P J C J, Narasaraopet. FAC PJCJ, Chilakaluripet.

Daily Status

In the Court of :Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet

Case No. :CC/0000007/2022 The SHO, EDlapadu PS., Vs Darsi Anil Kumar

Date : 05-12-2022

Order: Accused is present, Judgement pronounced in the open Court (VSJ), ln the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/s 304-A of and he is acquitted of the same U/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds and surety bonds if any shall stand decharged. Nature of Disposal: ACQUITTAL Disposal Date: 05-12-2022 For Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet

Daily Status

In the Court of :Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet

Case No. :CC/0000674/2021 The SHO, Chilakaluripet rural PS., Vs Purushothampatnam Nagur

Date : 14-11-2022

Order: Both parties present, D/C lw1 orally reported that still she wants to compromise the offence. According same is recorded and pass award Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 14-11-2022 For Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet

Daily Status

In the Court of :Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet

Case No. :CC/0000241/2022 The SHO, Chilakaluripet Rural PS., Vs Kumbha Gopaiah alias Gopi and one other

Date : 24-12-2022

Order: Both parties present, The case is settled before Lok Adalath Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 24-12-2022 For Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet

Daily Status

In the Court of :Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet

Case No. :CC/0000483/2022 SHO, Chilakaluripet Urban PS Vs Cheethirala Poornachandrarao

Date : 14-12-2022

Order: The Case is settled before Lok Adalath Nature of Disposal: REFERRED TO LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 14-12-2022 For Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet