Ms.V.Sri Prathyusha

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM -

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : MANGALAGIRI

PRESENT: Ms.V. Sri Prathyusha,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class

-cum- Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

Friday, the 22 nd day of March, 2024

C.C.No.605 of 2023

Between :

State : Sub Inspector of Police,

Tadikonda Police Station.

…..Complainant.

And

1. Gerapati Venkateswarlu, S/o. China Subba Rao, 34 years, R/o. 113 Thalluru Village, Phirangipuram Mandal.

2. Chukka Thambi, S/o. Jojappa, 23 years, R/o. 113 Thalluru Village, Phirangipuram Mandal.

3. Chukka Ratna Kumar, S/o. China Sundara Rao, 25 years, R/o. 113 Thalluru Village, Phirangipuram Mandal.

4. Chukka Prabhu Dasu @ Prabhu, S/o. Thomas, 20 years, R/o. 113 Thalluru Village, Phirangipuram Mandal. ..… A1 to A4 This case came before this Court for final hearing on 29.02.2024 in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri

B.Mothilal, Advocate for A1 to A4 and upon hearing both the sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub Inspector of Police, Tadikonda Police Station, filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 in Crime No.369 of 2021 for the offence punishable under

Section 420 IPC and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act.

02. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

That on 28-08-2021, LW4/G. Venkatadri, Sub-Inspector of Police received credible information about the illegal transportation of PDS rice through a mini lorry. Then, he along with his staff i.e., LW1 and LW2 (K. Chenchayya and P. Appala

Naidu) rushed to the scene of offence ie., Lam village, met the informant, found mini lorry bearing No. AP 07 TE 2499 along with A1 to A4 and on seeing the police, A1 to A4 tried to escape from the spot but LW4 apprehended them with the help of his staff. On enquiry, A1 to A4 revealed their identity particulars and confessed that A1 used to run mini lorry on rent as there is no sufficient work for him to earn sufficient money for his family, he decided to sell PDS rice for higher 2 price and then, he along with A2 to A4, used to collect PDS rice from card holders, load in the mini lorry, used to sell the same for higher price to the poultries and accordingly, on 28-08-2021 also, they collected 60 plastic bags ie., nearly 30 quintals of PDS rice, loaded the same into mini lorry and in the meanwhile, they were caught by the police. Then, on verification of the mini lorry, LW4 found 60 bags of PDS rice weighing nearly 30 quintals. Then, LW4 seized the PDS rice along with mini lorry, arrested A1 to A4 under cover of police proceedings. After returning to the police, LW4 registered the police proceedings as a case in

Cr.No.369 of 2021 under Section 420 IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW4 visited the scene of offence, examined the scene, prepared rough sketch of the scene, secured the presence of

LW1 and LW2, examined them and recorded their statements under Section 161

Cr.P.C. Thereafter, LW4 served Section 41(A) notices to A1 to A4. Later, on credible information, LW4 went to Pedavadlapudi village and secured the presence of A3 and after explaining the case facts LW4 served Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C. notice to them.

Further, Tahsildar, Tadikonda received the seized PDS rice from LW4 for safe custody under proper acknowledgment and LW5/ Ch. Narjuna Sub-Inspector of police took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by LW5 and found it on correct lines. After completion of entire investigation, LW5 filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

03.On satisfying the material placed before this court and also taking into consideration the police proceedings and the contents of the charge sheet, this

Court took cognizance against A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) of Essential commodities Act. On appearance of A1 to A4, this court furnished copies of case documents to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

04. This court examined A1 to A4 under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and a charge under Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW1 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MO1. No defence witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of A1 to A4. The Learned APP has given up the evidences of LW1 to LW3 and LW5 (K. Chenchayya, P. Appala Naidu,

Bommisetti Balakrishna Murthy and Ch. Nagarjuna respectively).

06. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, this Court examined A1 to A4 under Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appearing against them in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the 3 same and reported no defence evidence.

07.Heard both the sides arguments.

08. Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the

offence punishable under 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act, beyond

reasonable doubt”?

09. POINT:

i) The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has contended that PW1 received credible information about the illegal transportation of PDS rice through a mini lorry, then, he along with his staff i.e., LW1 and LW2 rushed to the scene of offence ie., Lam village, met the informant, found mini lorry bearing No. AP 07 TE 2499 along with A1 to A4, on seeing the police, A1 to A4 tried to escape from the spot but PW1 apprehended them with the help of his staff and on enquiry A1 to A4 revealed their identity particulars and confessed the commission of offence. She further contended that on verification of the mini lorry, PW1 found 60 bags of PDS rice weighing nearly 30 quintals, seized the PDS rice along with mini lorry, arrested A1 to A4 under cover of police proceedings, after returning to the police,

PW1 registered the police proceedings as a case in Cr.No.369 of 2021 under

Section 420 IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act, visited the scene of offence, examined the scene, prepared rough sketch of the scene, secured the presence of LW1 and LW2, examined them and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., served

Section 41(A) notices to A1 to A4 and after completion of entire investigation, LW5 filed charge sheet against the accused. She has further contended that as per the evidence of PW1, the prosecution side has proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) of EC Act for transporting PDS rice bags illegally beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the prosecution prayed this court to convict A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) of Essential

Commodities Act.

ii) The learned counsel for A1 to A4 has contended that A1 to A4 were falsely implicated in this case and they are innocent persons and they never committed any type of offence. He has further contended that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and PW1 has not seized the PDS Rice from the possession of A1 to A4 and the prosecution failed to examine any persons in the locality as mediators to prove that A1 to A4 were in possession of the PDS Rice and selling the same to public for higher rate as alleged in Ex.P1. He has further contended that Ex.P1 was prepared at the police station by PW1 at the request of 4 police. Hence A1 to A4 never committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and as such A1 to A4 are not found guilt for the offence under Section 7(1) of EC Act. Hence the defence counsel prayed this court to acquit A1 to A4.

iii) To constitute the offence punishable under Section 7(1) of Essential

Commodities Act against A1 to A4, the prosecution in all examined:-

a) LW4 who conducted raid and investigated this case as PW1.

iv) To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined LW5 namely G. Venkatadri, Head Constable as PW1. PW1 exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and

MO1. During the chief examination of PW1, PW1 deposed that on 28-08-2021 at 12.30 a.m., he along with LWs 1 and 2 on credible information to him, went to the scene of offence i.e., Lam village, they noticed one auto mini lorry bearing No. AP 07 TE 2499 along with A1 to A4, they tried to escape from there on seeing the police, but they detained them and on enquiry, they confessed that they collected

PDS rice at Lam village from public and transporting the same illegally to sell the same at higher rate. PW1 further deposed that he verified the auto mini lorry, found 60 plastic bags from auto mini lorry which contains PDS Rice weighing 30 quintals, seized the PDS rice bags, auto mini lorry, prepared police proceedings, arrested A1 to A4, they went to the police station, they registered the case in

Cr.No.369/2021 U/sec.420 of IPC and Sec.7 of EC Act, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined LWs1 and 2 and recorded their statements, handed over PDS rice bags to LW3, received receipt, served Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C., notices to A1 to A4 and after completion of investigation, PW1 filed charge sheet.

v) On perusal of entire evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it is seen that the main contention of A1 to A4 is that the property i.e,. PDS Rice was not seized from their possession at all and they were not selling the same to public and they never committed any such type of offence. Pertaining to the said contention, as it could be seen from the evidence placed before the court that report was prepared by PW1 and none of the local inhabitants acted as mediators to prove that the PDS Rice was seized from the possession of A1 to A4. It is an initial burden on the prosecution to prove that A1 to A4 were in possession of PDS

Rice bags and they were transporting PDS rice bags illegally. To prove the same, the prosecution examined PW1 who conducted raid and investigated this case.

Coming to the evidence of PW1, it is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that he has not mentioned the time when he got credible information in Ex.P1. It is further elicited from PW1 that he has not mentioned the time when they started from police station and when they reached the scene of offence in Ex.P1. If really 5

PW1 conducted raid at the scene of offence and seized PDS rice from the possession of the accused, then PW1 would have mentioned the time when he got credible information and at what time, they started from police station but PW1 failed to mention the time when PW1 got credible information and at what time, he reached the scene of offence. Hence non-mentioning the said details by PW1 in

Ex.P1 makes the case of the prosecution dis believable.

vi) It is further elicited from PW1 that they have not mentioned about the conveyance details in which they went to the scene of offence in Ex.P1. On perusal of Ex.P1, it is seen that PW1 failed to mention about the conveyance details in which they went to the scene of offence. If really PW1 to the scene of offence, PW1 would have mentioned the conveyance details in the contents of Ex.P1 but there is no mention about the same. What prevented PW1 to mention about the conveyance details if really PW1 conducted raid at the scene of offence. Hence non-mentioning about the conveyance details in Ex.P1 creates doubt in the mind of the court with regard to seizure of the PDS rice from the possession of A1 to A4.

vii) It is further elicited from PW1 that he has not mentioned the exact location of the scene of offence in Ex.P1. On perusal of Ex.P1, it is seen that there is no mention about exact location of scene of offence. If really PW1 conducted raid at the scene of offence, then what prevented PW1 to mention the exact location of scene of offence in Ex.P1. Hence the same makes the raid conducted by PW1 dis believable.

viii) It is further elicited from PW1 that he has opened 10 bags and verified the same, but he has not mentioned the same in Ex.P1. If really PW1 opened 10 bags and verified the same, then what prevented PW1 to mention about the said fact in Ex.P1. Hence non-mentioning the said details by PW1 in Ex.P1 makes the raid conducted by PW1 dis believable.

ix) It is further elicited from PW1 that no money was seized from the possession of the accused. If really A1 to A4 were selling PDS rice at the scene of offence, then PW1 would have seized money from the possession of A1 to A4, but the evidence of PW1 shows that no money was seized from the possession of A1 to A4. Hence the same makes the case of the prosecution dis believable with regard to allegation that A1 to A4 collected PDS rice for low price and they were standing at the scene of offence for selling them.

6

x) It is further elicited from PW1 that he has not seen government logos on the bags. When PW1 has not noticed government logo on the bags, then how

PW1 came to conclusion that bags contains PDS rice. On perusal of Ex.P1, it is seen that there is no mention in the proceedings that how PW1 came to conclusion that bags contains PDS rice. Hence non-mentioning the reasons as to how PW1 came to conclusion that bags contains PDS rice makes the allegations of

PW1 that he seized 60 bags of PDS rice from A1 to A4 dis believable.

xi) PW1 admitted that the scene of offence area is busy locality. It is further elicited from PW1 that he has not secured local inhabitants as well as VRO., and

VRA., as mediators in this case. When the scene of offence is a busy locality, then what prevented PW1 to secure local inhabitants as mediators at the time of raid. On perusal of Ex.P1, it is seen that there is no mention about the names of the persons who refused to act as mediators at the scene of offence to believe that PW1 tried to secure the mediators at the scene of offence. On perusal of the record, it shows that the concerned investigating officer has not at all taken any steps for securing mediators at the scene of offence. Mere mentioning that none came forward does not hold any water unless the prosecution proves that PW1 tried to secure mediators at the scene of offence by way of any ocular or documentary evidence. The prosecution failed to prove the same. PW1 failed to issue notice to the persons who actually refused to act as mediators. Moreover as per admission of PW1, it shows that PW1 has not at all tried to secure local persons as mediators. Hence it is relevant to note the decision in Botcha Raju Vs.

State Rep, by the Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle, 1994 (2) ALT (Crl)

P.69 (A.P), the Hon’ble High Court of AP held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by the disinterested witnesses. In this case on hand, PW1 has not secured mediators at the time of seizure of the liquor bottles and the prosecution has not given sufficient reasons for not securing the mediators i.e,. local inhabitants who reside at the place of offence at the time of seizure. The prosecution failed to prove that the PDS rice was seized from the possession of A1 to A4 at the scene of offence by way of any disinterested witness or through any documentary proof. PW1 failed to secure the presence of VRO or VRA as mediators in this case. Hence the same makes the seizure of PDS rice from the possession of A1 to A4 and were transporting PDS rice illegally.

xii) It is further elicited from PW1 that he has not taken photos or videos at the scene of offence at the time of seizure of PDS rice bags. If really PW1 conducted raid and seized PDS rice bags, then PW1 would have taken photos or video at the scene of offence at the time of seizure of PDS rice bags from the 7 possession of A1 to A4, but PW1 failed to capture the same. What prevented PW1 to take photos or videos if really PW1 conducted raid at the scene of offence.

Hence the same makes the case of the prosecution dis believable.

xiii) It is further elicited from PW1 that he is the complainant and investigating officer in this case and he registered this case. It is apt to note the decision of

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2003 (2) ALD (Crl) 13

between (Gurajala Ramesh Vs. State of AP), where in the Hon’ble High

Court relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Bhagwan

Vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1976 Sc 985), as per the purport of the said decision, practice of conducting investigation by the person who conducted raid and on whose complaint, First Information Report was lodged shall not be resorted to do investigation, so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. In this case, PW1 is the person who went to the scene of offence and arrested the accused and initiated criminal action, registered the case, and investigated this case. Thus, in the light of the above cited decision, this court opines that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW1 to pose conviction against the accused.

xiv) It is further elicited from PW1 that he has not enquired about the source of PDS rice as per the confessional statement of the accused. If really PW1 went and conducted raid at the scene of offence and seized PDS rice from the possession of the accused, then what prevented PW1 to make enquiry about the source of PDS rice from cardholders from whom the accused has purchased the rice bags. Hence it shows that PW1 has not enquired about the source of PDS rice bags how the accused was in possession of PDS rice bags and the same makes the case of the prosecution dis believable.

xv) It is further elicited from PW1 that he has not filed any documentary proof to show that the bags contains PDS rice. As per the said admission of PW1, it shows that PW1 has no documentary proof to show that bags contains PDS rice.

When PW1 has no documentary proof, then how PW1 came to conclusion that bags contains PDS rice. On perusal of Ex.P1, it is seen that PW1 has not mentioned any reasons as to how he came to conclusion that bags contains PDS rice and he simply mentioned that he verified the bags and found PDS rice in the bags and the same is not suffice to believe that bags contained PDS rice. Hence the said answers of PW1 makes the case of the prosecution dis believable.

8 xvi) On further perusal of Ex.P1, it is seen that PW1 has mentioned that A1 to

A4 confessed before him that they collected PDS Rice from public and transporting the same to sell the rice to the public at higher rate illegally. The said statement of A1 to A4 which was recorded by PW1/investigating officer when they were in police custody was hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act. The law in this regard is very clear that the confession before the police officer by A1 to A4 when they were in police custody cannot be called an Extra-Judicial confession. If a confession is made by the accused before the police officer and a portion of confession leads to recovery of any incriminating material, such portion alone would be admissible under Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act and not the entire confessional statement. In the instant case, confession of A1 to A4 would not lead the investigating officer to seize any incriminating material. Hence the said confessional statement of A1 to A4 recorded in Ex.P1 by PW1 is inadmissible.

xvii) It is further seen from the entire evidence placed before this court on behalf of the prosecution that no cogent evidence was placed by the prosecution to prove that the PDS Rice was in the possession of A1 to A4 and A1 to A4 have purchased PDS rice from cardholders and transporting the same for sale illegally.

None of the villagers/local inhabitants evidence was placed before this court to believe the said fact. Coming to Ex.P4, it is seen that it is an acknowledgment given by CSDT stating that he received bags weighing 30 quintals in total PDS rice but he has not certified that the said rice bags contains PDS Rice. Hence Ex.P4 doesn’t come in aid for the case of the prosecution to prove the contents of Ex.P1.

On further perusal of Ex.P4, it is seen that CSDT has received rice bags on 30-08- 2021. The date of raid mentioned in Ex.P1 is 28-08-2021. It is manifest that PW1 has not handed over rice bags to CSDT on the same day and there is a delay of 2 days in handing over bags to CSDT but PW1 failed to mention reasons for delay in the contents of charge sheet. Hence non-mentioning reasons for delay casts serious shadow on the genuineness of the prosecution story. PW1 failed to secure local inhabitants as mediators in this case at the time of seizure of PDS rice. PW1 failed to make enquiry about the source of PDS rice from card holders. PW1 failed to file any piece of paper to prove that rice bag contains PDS rice belongs to

Government. Hence in view of the above discussion, it is seen that seizure of the

PDS Rice from the possession of A1 to A4 and they have purchased the said rice from cardholders and transporting the same to public and they cheated the government by selling the PDS Rice are not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt against A1 to A4 and the same remained not cogently proved.

xviii) Hence in view of the above discussion, this court comes to an indomitable conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish its case and it is 9 highly unsafe to rely upon the testimony of PW1, while sustaining conviction and failed to prove guilt of A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) of

Essential commodities Act beyond reasonable doubt by adducing sufficient, cogent and clear evidence and hence a benefit of doubt is accorded in favor of A1 to A4 for the same. Hence, A1 to A4 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered.

10. In the result, A1 to A4 are not found guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act and thereby for the same, A1 to A4 are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds on record shall stand cancelled after lapse of 6 months along with surety bonds as per Section 437-A

Cr.P.C. The marked property i.e., MO1 is auto mini lorry vehicle bearing No. AP 07

TE 2499 which was given to the petitioner/owner i.e., Palapati Sudhakar S/o.

Sambaiah towards an interim custody as per the orders vide Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition Nos.777/2021, dt.06-09-2021 shall be made absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer grade - III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 22nd day of March, 2024.

Sd/-Ms.V.Sri Prathyusha,

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

-CUM-CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : PW1: G. Venkatadri

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution : Ex.P1 is the Police proceedings. Ex.P2 is the First Information report. Ex.P3 is the Rough sketch. Ex.P4 is the Receipt dt.30-08-2021. For Defence: NIL Material Objects: MO1 is goods carriage bearing No. AP 07 TE 2499.

Sd/-Ms.V.Sri Prathyusha,

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

-CUM-CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

//True Copy//

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

-CUM-CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS – CUM -

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : MANGALAGIRI

Calendar in C.C.605 of 2023

Date of Offence : 28-08-2021

Date of arrest of Accused : Section 41-A Cr.P.C notices served.

Date of Release of accused on bail : ---

Date of commencement of Trial : 18-12-2023

Date of close of Trial : 18-12-2023

Date of sentence or order : 22-03-2024

Crime No. and Name of P.S. : Cr.No.369 of 2021 of Tadikonda P.S.

Name of the Complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadikonda P.S.

Description of A1 to A4.:

1. Gerapati Venkateswarlu, S/o. China Subba Rao, 34 years, R/o. 113 Thalluru Village, Phirangipuram Mandal.

2. Chukka Thambi, S/o. Jojappa, 23 years, R/o. 113 Thalluru Village, Phirangipuram Mandal.

3. Chukka Ratna Kumar, S/o. China Sundara Rao, 25 years, R/o. 113 Thalluru Village, Phirangipuram Mandal.

4. Chukka Prabhu Dasu @ Prabhu, S/o. Thomas, 20 years, R/o. 113 Thalluru Village, Phirangipuram Mandal.

Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file against A1 to A4 on 31-07- 2023. Copies furnished to A1 to A4 on 23-08-2023. On 26-09-2023, A1 to A4 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. On 18-12-2023, PW1 was examined and the prosecution evidence was closed. On 29-12-2023, A1 to A4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and they reported no defence. On 29-02-2024, heard arguments on both sides. On 22-03-2024, judgment is pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Section of Law : Under Section 7(1) of E.C Act.

Finding of Court : Found not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, A1 to A4 are not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act and thereby for the same, A1 to A4 are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds on record shall stand cancelled after lapse of 6 months along with surety bonds as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The marked property i.e., MO1 is auto mini lorry vehicle bearing No. AP 07 TE 2499 which was given to the petitioner/owner i.e., Palapati Sudhakar S/o. Sambaiah towards an interim custody as per the orders vide Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.777/2021, dt.06-09- 2021 shall be made absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/-Ms.V.Sri Prathyusha,

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

-CUM-CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

//True Copy//

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

-CUM-CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

MANGALAGIRI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

MANGALAGIRI.

PRESENT: ­ Ms.V. SRI PRATHYUSHA,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALAGIRI.

 FAC. PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

MANGALAGIRI.

FRIDAY , THE 28 th DAY OF APRIL, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.396/2021.

Jarugu Malleswara Rao. … Plaintiff

Vs 

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao having died and his L.Rs.,

1. Pasupuleti Nagulu.

2. Pasupuleti Praveen Kumar.

3. Pasupuleti Sai Kumar. 

4. Pasupuleti Dhana Lakshmi.

All are residents of D.No.2­222, Chirravuru village, 

Tadepalli Mandal,

Guntur District.

… Defendants

This suit came before this court for final hearing on 12­04­2023 in the presence of Sri A.Ram Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of

Sri P. Nava Jeevan, Advocate for the Defendants and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,43,467/­ being the

principal and interest due on suit promissory note dated: 02­02­2020, for

Rs.1,00,000/­ executed by the Late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., for subsequent interest and costs, from and out of the Estate of Late

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, lying in the hands of Defendants. 

2

2) In a nutshell, The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :

On 02­02­2020, one Late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from plaintiff and in evidence thereof, he executed promissory note for Rs.1,00,000/­ on the same day in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand at Chirravuru village of Tadepalli Mandal. The plaintiff personally approached the said

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao and requested him to repay the amount covered under said promissory note. But, he did not choose to discharge the same and delayed the same on some pretext or other. The said

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao died on 12­09­2020 leaving behind the defendants as his legal representatives upon whom the estate of the said

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao devolved. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators for repayment of debt contracted by the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, the defendants did not choose to repay the same on some pretext or other.

Thereafter, inspite of the repeated demands of plaintiff, the defendants being the legal representatives of deceased Late Pasupuleti Siva

Nageswara Rao and members of the said Hindu Undivided Family having inherited all his assets and estate, not choose to discharge the debt of

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao. Hence the plaintiff is obliged to file the present suit. Hence the suit.

3) The 1st defendant filed his written statement and contended that the plaintiff did not file any document evidence or any name of the persons that he was approached the husband of defendant No.1 i.e,

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao during his lifetime and requested to settle the debt under the above suit promissory note and moreover when and where and also whose presence the plaintiff has approached the defendants and requested to settle the matter and after death of

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, the plaintiff did not give any legal notice 3 to the defendants and also never approached the defendants and never demand. It is more interesting story created by plaintiff towards the husband of defendant No.1 by way of created forgery and fabricated documents in favour of plaintiff that the promissory note of marked pronote scribed and attestors are not known to the defendants, but immediately after receipt of summons from the court the defendants made enquiry about the scribe and the attestors of the alleged promissory note are close associates and henchmen to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is habitual litigant in the village and hatched a plan with the scribe and attestors created forgery and fabricated documents in the name of the persons who were died and who are financially and numerically weaken persons in order to get wrongful gain. In this respect, the husband of defendant No.1 i.e, Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara

Rao made requisitions before the village elders, but the plaintiff and his men did not listen the words of village elders and also continuously harassing, humiliating in the public and also threatening to kill his family members i.e., defendants. So, that the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara

Rao was also approached and presented the report to the concerned police but the police did not take proper action against plaintiff and his men due to political financial and numerical strength of the plaintiff and their men. Under the above circumstances, the plaintiff and their men made harassment in an increasing manner, the same was not bearable by

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao and forced the husband of defendant

No.1 to commit suicide. So, the death of the said Pasupuleti Siva

Nageswara Rao amounts to murder under Section 306 of IPC, but after that also the plaintiff and their men managed the police and the same was registered as crime under suicide. The husband of defendant No.1 never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff for any others. There is no need to the husband of defendant No.1 to borrow the huge amounts as the husband of defendant No.1 is a small farmer. The suit promissory note did not disclose the column of all makam which means in which place 4 the plaint promissory note was executed and so that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint and the calculations of the suit promissory note are not correct as per the list of the documents and the promissory note was not sent to the forensic expert to compare the thumb impression of late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao and suit promissory note was created, forged and fabricated document in the name of deceased Siva Nageswara Rao and the deceased Siva Nageswara

Rao never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in his favour. Hence there are no merits in the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4)On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note,

dated: 02­02­2020 for Rs.1,00,000/­

executed by deceased Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao in favour of plaintiff is true and valid ?

2. Whether the suit promissory notes,

dated: 02­02­2020 for Rs.1,00,000/­ is

binding on the defendants 1 to 4 ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the estate of deceased Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao ?

4. To what relief ?

5) During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as

PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1. The plaintiff examined one Kuppala Arjuna

Rao as PW2 and one Parimisetty Siva Nageswara Rao as PW3. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant examined herself as DW1. No documents were marked on behalf of the defendants. 

5

6)Heard both the sides arguments.

7) ISSUE NO .1:

i) The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that during the life time of Pasupuletti Siva Nageswara Rao, he had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the plaintiff to meet his family necessities and personal needs, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a., for in evidence thereof, the said Pasupuletti Siva Nageswara Rao has executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of the plaintiff on 02­02­2020. To prove the same, PW1 exhibited Ex.A1. He has further contended that inspite of repeated oral request and demands made by the plaintiff during life time of the said late Pasupuletti Siva Nageswara

Rao, he did not choose to repay the same either principal nor interest due under the above said pronote. Mean while he died. Immediately after demise of the said Pasupuletti Siva Nageswara Rao, the plaintiff had approached the defendants and requested to repay the debt due under the said promissory note which was executed by late Pasupuletti Siva

Nageswara Rao but the defendants have been postponing the same with some pretext or other for reason best known to them only. Hence being a legal heirs of late Pasupuletti Siva Nageswara Rao, the defendants are liable to discharge the debt due under the promissory note which was executed by late Pasupuletti Siva Nageswara Rao in favour of the plaintiff. He has further contended that the plaintiff further examined one of the attestor and scriber of Ex.A1 as PW2 and PW3. The evidences of PW2 and PW3 very well corroborates with the evidence of PW1. The defendants failed to prove their case. Hence the plaintiff prayed this court to decree the suit.

ii) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants has contended that the plaintiff did not file any documentary evidence or any name of the persons that he was approached the husband of defendant

No.1 i.e, Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao during his lifetime and 6 requested to settle the debt under the above suit promissory note and moreover when and where and in whose presence, the plaintiff has approached the defendants and requested to settle the matter and after death of Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, and the plaintiff did not give any legal notice to the defendants and also never approached the defendants and never demanded the defendants. He has further contended that the plaintiff is habitual litigant in the village and hatched a plan with the scribe and attestors created forgery and fabricated documents in the name of the persons who were died and who are financially and numerically weaken persons in order to get wrongful gain. He has further contended that in this respect, the husband of defendant No.1 i.e, Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao made requisitions

before the village elders, but the plaintiff and his men did not listen the

words of village elders and also continuously harassing, humiliating in the public and also threatening to kill his family members i.e., defendants and so, that the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao has also approached and presented the report to the concerned police but the police did not take proper action against the plaintiff and his men due to political financial and numerical strength of the plaintiff and their men. He has further contended that the plaintiff and their men made harassment in an increasing manner, and the same was not bearable by Pasupuleti Siva

Nageswara Rao and forced the husband of defendant No.1 to commit suicide and so, the death of the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao amounts to murder under Section 306 of IPC, but after that also the plaintiff and their men managed the police and the same was registered as crime under suicide. He has further contended that the husband of defendant No.1 never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff for any others and there is no need to the husband of defendant No.1 to borrow the huge amounts as the husband of defendant No.1 is a small farmer. Hence there are no merits in the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

7 iii)This issue casts legal burden on the plaintiff to prove that the suit promissory note is true and valid. To prove the same, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination­in­chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such the examination in chief of PW1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. In addition to that, PW1 exhibited Ex.A1. On perusal of Ex.A1, it appears that P.Siva Nageswara Rao has borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/­ on 02­02­2020. During the cross examination of PW1, it is elicited in the cross examination that she was an illiterate and his chief affidavit was in English language and as such he do not know the same.

It is further elicited from PW1 that the present suit was filed against

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao and on 02­02­2020, he advanced amount to said Siva Nageswara Rao. PW1 denied the suggestion that during that period there was lock­down and there is no situation to come out side. It is further elicited from PW1 that about two years back, the said Siva

Nageswara Rao was demise and he cannot say the date of his demise. It is further elicited from PW1 that he had sent Mekala Jayabbayai and

Boppuna Gopulu to the house of Siva Nageswara Rao demanding them to discharge the amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note. It is further elicited from PW1 that he had not mentioned the names of elders in his chief examination affidavit and he was eking life by doing muta work. It is further elicited from PW1 that he also do agricultural work and Ex.A1 promissory note was executed at his house. It is further elicited from

PW1 that two persons had affixed signatures in Ex.A1 promissory note and he cannot say the colour of ink used for filling Ex.A1 promissory note. It is further elicited from PW1 that he used to earn Rs.1,000/­ per day and he doesn’t know one Balaji. PW1 further denied the suggestion that there were financial transaction between deceased Siva Nageswara

Rao and said Balaji and to help the said Balaji, he got filled one promissory note in his name and the same was filed by him and he never advanced amount to the deceased Siva Nageswara Rao. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW1, it is seen that nothing worth material is 8 culled out on behalf of the defendants to prove their defence.

iv)To further discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff examined one Kuppala Arjuna Rao as PW2. Chief affidavit of PW2 is nothing but replica of the plaint and PW2 in his chief affidavit further stated that he and one P.Naga Malleswara Rao stood as attestors in the said promissory note and Said P.Naga Malleswara Rao scribed Ex.A1 in the presence of plaintiff and the deceased and in their presence, the said P.Naga

Malleswara Rao borrowed amount from the plaintiff. During the cross examination of PW2, it is elicited from PW2 that he studied upto 10th class and the present suit were filed one Jarugu Malleswara Rao against the wife and children of deceased Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao. It is further elicited from PW2 that the plaintiff is an agricultural coolie. PW2 denied the suggestion that the plaintiff is doing money lending business.

It is further elicited from PW2 that the deceased Siva Nageswara Rao had taken him to the house of plaintiff and Exhibit A1 promissory note contains three signatures and one thumb impression. It is further elicited from PW2 that the suit promissory note was executed on 02­02­2020. It is further elicited from PW2 that PW1 gave cash of Rs.1,00,000/­ to the deceased Siva Nageswara Rao and after receiving cash of Rs.1,00,000/­ from PW1, the deceased had affixed his thumb impression in Exhibit A1 promissory note and thereafter he put his signature as 1st attestor. PW2 denied the suggestion that he had not mentioned the place of execution in his chief affidavit. It is further elicited from PW2 that he do not know one Balaji and he put his signature with blue pen. It is further elicited from PW2 that the remaining persons had also affixed their signatures with blue ink pen. PW2 denied the suggestion that the said Balaji used to sell the pesticides on credit basis and at the time of selling pesticides, he used to take promissory notes from the agriculturists and at the instance of said Balajai the suit promissory note was fabricated and he came to court to depose evidence falsely and no transaction took place on 02­02­ 2020 as alleged by him and the deceases Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao 9 never borrowed any amount from PW1. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW2, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of PW2 on behalf of the defendants to prove their defence.

v)To further discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff examined one Parimisetty Siva Nageswara Rao as PW3. Chief affidavit of PW3 is nothing but replica of the plaint and PW3 in his chief affidavit further stated that on the instructions of P.Siva Nageswara Rao, he scribed Ex.A1 in the presence of attestors and after completion of scribing the promissory note, he read over the contents to P.Siva Nageswara Rao who agreed for the same and received the amount from the plaintiff. During the cross examination of PW3, it is elicited from PW3 that he studied upto 7th class and he doesn’t know English reading and writing and his counsel had read over the contents of his chief affidavit. It is further elicited from PW3 that Exhibit A1 transaction took place on 02­02­2020 in between 10.00 to 11.00 AM and at the request of PW1, he came to court to depose evidence. It is further elicited from PW3 that himself along with deceased Siva Nageswara Rao and two attestors went to the house of PW1 and at request of the deceased Siva Nageswara Rao, he scribed Exhibit A1 promissory note. It is further elicited from PW3 that himself, plaintiff, deceased Naga Malleswara Rao, Arjuna Rao and

Parimisetti Naga Malleswara Rao were present at the time of Exhibit A1 transaction. It is further elicited from PW3 that Exhibit A1 contains three signatures and one thumb mark and after affixing his signature in Exhibit

A1 promissory note, the deceased received amount from PW1. It is further elicited from PW3 that one Balaji is resident of their village and doing fertilizers business. PW3 denied the suggestion that the said Balaji used to take blank signed promissory notes from the agriculturists at the time of selling pesticides towards security and at the instance of said

Balaji, Exhibit A1 promissory not was fabricated by them and brought into existence and harassing the defendants after the demise of Siva

Nageswara Rao. It is further elicited from PW3 that in Exhibit A1 two 10 signatures were in telugu and one signature in english. PW3 further denied the suggestion that the deceased Siva Nageswara Rao never engaged him to the house of PW1 and PW1 never gave cash of

Rs.1,00,000/­ to deceased Siva Nageswara Rao in his presence. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW3, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of PW3 on behalf of the defendants to prove their defence.

vi) To prove the defence taken by the defendants, the 1st defendant examined herself as DW1 and she filed her chief affidavit in lieu of her examination­in­chief and the chief affidavit of DW1 is nothing but the replica of written statement. During cross examination of DW1, it is elicited from DW1 that she was native of Chirravuru village and since 23 years, she was residing at Chirravuru village. It is further elicited from

DW1 that she know reading Telugu Language and she does not know writing Telugu, except her signature. It is further elicited from DW1 that she know plaintiff in the above suit. It is further elicited from DW1 that the plaintiff and others had filed suits for recovery of amounts said to have been borrow by her husband. It is further elicited from DW1 that the plaintiff and other creditors, on 5th day ceremony of her husband, they came to her house and demanded them to repay the amount borrowed by her husband. she added that she does not know about the alleged suit transaction. It is further elicited from DW1 that she know

Parimisetty Siva Nageswara Rao since her childhood and she had not taken any legal action against the plaintiff, attestors and scribe as alleged suit promissory note is created and fabricated. If really the plaintiff and his henchmen were harassing the defendants, then what prevented DW1 to give report against them alleging that they are harassing the defendants. Hence the same makes the defence taken by DW1 dis believable. DW1 adds that the plaintiff demanded her husband in phone during his life time. It is further elicited from DW1 that above matter was placed before elders during life time of her husband and she had not filed copy of complaint before the Hon’ble court to show that the plaintiff and 11 his elders tried to beat her husband. If really PW1 tried to beat the husband of the 1st defendant and DW1 has given complaint, then what prevented DW1 to give complaint copy before this court to prove the defence taken by DW1. It is further elicited from DW1 that her husband died due to heavy debts and she was not ready and willing to send the suit document for expert opinion. It is crystal clear that DW1’s husband has heavy debts. If really the husband of the 1st defendant has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, then what prevented DW1 to send Ex.A1 to handwriting expert to prove the defence taken by the defendants. Hence the same shows that the defence taken by the defendants is a feeble defence and thus casts serious shadow on the genuineness of the defendants story. 

 vii) On perusal of entire deposition of PW1 to PW3, it is seen that the defendants have put suggestions to PW1 that there were financial transaction between deceased Siva Nageswara Rao and said Balaji and to help the said Balaji, he got filled one promissory note in his name and the same was filed by him and he never advanced amount to the deceased Siva Nageswara Rao. It is further seen that the defendants have put suggestions to PW2 that the said Balaji used to sell the pesticides on credit basis and at the time of selling pesticides, he used to take promissory notes from the agriculturists and at the instance of said

Balaji, the suit promissory note was fabricated. The said suggestions were not at all reflected as the defence of the defendants in the written statement as well as in the chief affidavit of DW1. The said suggestions were brought before the court during the cross examination for the first time. The defendants have not all disclosed about the said Balaji in their written statement and in the chief affidavit of DW1. The defence taken in the written statement and chief affidavit of DW1 is different from the defence taken during cross examination. Hence it shows that the defendants have taken feeble defence which has no legal stand and the defence taken by the defendants are not consistency and dis believable.

12 viii) On perusal of entire evidences adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant, it is seen that nothing worth material was elicited from the cross examination of PW’s 1 to 3 on behalf of the defendants to believe the defence taken by the defendants. The evidences of PW2 and PW3 very well corroborates with the evidence of PW1. The defence taken by the defendants in the written statement and during cross examination of PW1 to PW3 quiet differs and it shows that they have taken feeble defence which has no legal weightage. The another contention of the defendants is that PW1 has not issued legal notice to them and Late P.Siva Nageswara Rao. As per Ex.A1, it shows that the late

P.Siva Nageswara Rao executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. PW1 stated in the plaint that he orally demanded the deceased and the defendants. Hence as per the said endorsement in Ex.A1, oral demand made by the plaintiff is sufficient.

Hence the said contention of the defendants is not tenable contentions.

PW1 deposed during his cross examination that Ex.A1 contains two signatures but PW3 deposed during their cross examination that there are three signatures and one thumb impression in Ex.A1. These are minor discrepancies in the evidences of PW1 and PW3 which doesn’t falsify the contents of Ex.A1. The plaintiff very well proved that the suit promissory note is true and valid through his evidence and through the evidences of PW2 and PW3. Ex.A1 was unrebutted by the defendants.

The defendants failed to prove their defence. Hence this point is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

8) ISSUE NO.2:

It is seen that the said late P.Siva Nageswara Rao was demised who has executed Ex.A1 in favor of the plaintiff and as the said P.Siva

Nageswara Rao has died, his legal heirs are liable to pay the suit amount from and out of the estate of the late P.Siva Nageswara Rao which is 13 lying in the hands of the defendants. Hence this issue is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

9) ISSUE NO.3:

In view of the above discussion in Issue Nos.1 and 2, this court come to indomitable conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as sought for. Hence this point is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 

10) ISSUE NO.4:

In view of answering Issue Nos.1 to 3 in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, the suit has to be decreed. 

11) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the defendants are liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,43,467/­ to the plaintiff along with further interest @ 12% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization from and out of the estate of late Pasupuletti Siva Nageswara Rao which is lying in the hands of the defendants. 

 Typed to my dictation by the personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 28th day of April, 2023. Sd/­ V.Sri Prathyusha. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri FAC, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. 

Appendix of evidence

witnesses examined

For plaintiff :­

PW1: Jarugu Malleswara Rao. PW2: Kuppala Arjuna Rao. PW3: Parimisetty Siva Nageswara Rao. 

14

For defendants:­ 

DW1: Pasupuleti Nagulu. 

 Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff:­

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dated 02­02­2020 in favour of the plaintiff

Exhibits marked on behalf of the defendants:­ ­NIL­

Sd/­ V.Sri Prathyusha. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri FAC, Principal Junior Civil Judge Mangalagiri. 

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

MANGALAGIRI.

PRESENT: ­ Ms.V. SRI PRATHYUSHA,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALAGIRI.

 FAC. PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

MANGALAGIRI.

FRIDAY, THE 28 th DAY OF APRIL, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.409/2021

Meduri Suri Babu. … Plaintiff

Vs 

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao having died and his L.Rs.,

1. Pasupuleti Nagulu.

2. Pasupuleti Praveen Kumar.

3. Pasupuleti Sai Kumar. 

4. Pasupuleti Dhana Lakshmi.

All are residents of D.No.2­222, Chirravuru village, 

Tadepalli Mandal,

Guntur District.

… Defendants

This suit came before this court for final hearing on 12­04­2023 in the presence of Sri A.Ram Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of

Sri P. Nava Jeevan, Advocate for the Defendants and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T 

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,03,900/­ being the principal and interest due on two suit promissory notes dated: 02­05­ 2019 for Rs.1,00,000/­ and dated: 07­07­2019 for Rs.90,000/­ executed by the Late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., for subsequent 2 interest and costs, from and out of the Estate of Late Pasupuleti Siva

Nageswara Rao lying in the hands of Defendants. 

2) In a nutshell, The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :

On 02­05­2019, Late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from plaintiff and in evidence thereof, he executed promissory note for Rs.1,00,000/­ on the same day in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Again on 07­07­2019 the said

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.90,000/­ from plaintiff and in evidence thereof, he executed promissory note for

Rs.90,000/­ on the same day in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. The plaintiff personally approached the said Pasupuleti Siva

Nageswara Rao and requested him to repay the amount covered under said promissory notes. But, he did not choose to discharge the same on some pretext or other. The said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao died on 12­09­2020 leaving behind the defendants as his legal representatives upon whom the estate of the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao devolved. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators for repayment of debt contracted by the said

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, the defendants did not choose to repay the same on some pretext or other. Hence the plaintiff is obliged to file the present suit. Hence the suit.

3) The 1st defendant filed his written statement and contended that the plaintiff did not file any document evidence or any name of the persons that he was approached the husband of defendant No.1 I.e,

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao during his lifetime and requested to settle the debt under the above suit promissory note and moreover when and where and also whose presence the plaintiff has approached the defendants and requested to settle the matter and after death of 3

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, the plaintiff did not give any legal notice to the defendants and also never approached the defendants and never demand. It is more interesting story created by plaintiff towards the husband of defendant No.1 by way of created forgery and fabricated documents in favour of plaintiff that the promissory note of marked pronote scribed and attestos are not known to the defendants, but immediately after receipt of summons from the court the defendants made enquiry about the scribe and the attestors of the alleged promissory note are close associates and henchmen to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is habitual litigant in the village and hatched a plan with the scribe and attestors created forgery and fabricated documents in the name of the persons who were died and who are financially and numerically weaken persons in order to get wrongful gain. In this respect, the husband of defendant No.1 i.e, Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara

Rao made requisitions before the village elders, but the plaintiff and his men did not listen the words of village elders and also continuously harassing, humiliating in the public and also threatening to kill his family members i.e., defendants. So, that the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara

Rao was also approached and presented the report to the concerned police but the police did not take proper action against plaintiff and his men due to political financial and numerical strength of the plaintiff and their men. Under the above circumstances, the plaintiff and their men made harassment in an increasing manner, the same was not bearable by

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao and forced the husband of defendant

No.1 to commit suicide. So, the death of the said Pasupuleti Siva

Nageswara Rao amounts to murder under Section 306 of IPC, but after that also the plaintiff and their men managed the police and the same was registered as crime under suicide. The husband of defendant No.1 never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff for any others. There is no need to the husband of defendant No.1 to borrow the huge amounts as the husband of defendant No.1 is a small farmer. The suit promissory note did not disclose the column of all makam which means in which place 4 the plaint promissory note was executed and so that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint and the calculations of the suit promissory note are not correct as per the list of the documents and the promissory note was not sent to the forensic expert to compare the thumb impression of late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao and suit promissory note was created, forged and fabricated document in the name of deceased Siva Nageswara Rao and the deceased Siva Nageswara

Rao never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in his favour. Hence there are no merits in the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4)On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the “A” and “B” marked suit promissory notes, dated: 02­05­2019 for Rs.1,00,000/­ and on 07­07­2019 for Rs.90,000/­ executed by deceased Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao in favour

of plaintiff are true and valid ?

2. Whether the “A” and “B” marked suit promissory notes, dated: 02­05­2019 for Rs.1,00,000/­ and on 07­07­2019 for Rs.90,000/­ are binding on the defendants ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the estate of deceased Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao ?

4. To what relief ?

5) During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as

PW1 and exhibited Exs.A1 and A2. The plaintiff examined one

Parimisetti Siva Nageswara Rao as PW2. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant examined herself as DW1. No documents were marked 5 on behalf of the defendants. 

6)Heard both the sides arguments.

7) ISSUE NO .1:

i) The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that during the life time of Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, he had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ on 2­5­2019 and Rs.90,000/­ on 7­7­2019 from the plaintiff to meet his family necessities and personal needs, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a., for in evidence thereof, the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao has executed a two promissory notes on the respective days in favour of the plaintiff on 02­ 05­2019 and on 7­7­2019. To prove the same, PW1 exhibited Exs.A1 and

A2. He has further contended that inspite of repeated oral request and demands made by the plaintiff during life time of the said late Pasupuleti

Siva Nageswara Rao, he did not choose to repay the same either principal nor interest due under the above said pronote. Mean while he died.

Immediately after demise of the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, the plaintiff had approached the defendants and requested to repay the debt due under the said promissory note which was executed by late

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao but the defendants have been postponing the same with some pretext or other for reason best known to them only. Hence being a legal heirs of late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara

Rao, the defendants are liable to discharge the debt due under the promissory note which was executed by late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara

Rao in favour of the plaintiff. He has further contended that the plaintiff further examined scriber of Exs.A1 and A2 as PW2. The evidence of PW2 very well corroborates with the evidence of PW1. The defendants failed to prove their case. Hence the plaintiff prayed this court to decree the suit.

6 ii) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants has contended that the plaintiff did not file any documentary evidence or any name of the persons that he was approached the husband of defendant

No.1 i.e, Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao during his lifetime and requested to settle the debt under the above suit promissory note and moreover when and where and in whose presence, the plaintiff has approached the defendants and requested to settle the matter and after death of Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, and the plaintiff did not give any legal notice to the defendants and also never approached the defendants and never demanded the defendants. He has further contended that the plaintiff is habitual litigant in the village and hatched a plan with the scribe and attestors created forgery and fabricated documents in the name of the persons who were died and who are financially and numerically weaken persons in order to get wrongful gain. He has further contended that in this respect, the husband of defendant No.1 i.e, Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao made requisitions

before the village elders, but the plaintiff and his men did not listen the

words of village elders and also continuously harassing, humiliating in the public and also threatening to kill his family members i.e., defendants and so, that the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao has also approached and presented the report to the concerned police but the police did not take proper action against the plaintiff and his men due to political financial and numerical strength of the plaintiff and their men. He has further contended that the plaintiff and their men made harassment in an increasing manner, and the same was not bearable by Pasupuleti Siva

Nageswara Rao and forced the husband of defendant No.1 to commit suicide and so, the death of the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao amounts to murder under Section 306 of IPC, but after that also the plaintiff and their men managed the police and the same was registered as crime under suicide. He has further contended that the husband of defendant No.1 never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff for any others and there is no need to the husband of defendant No.1 to borrow the huge 7 amounts as the husband of defendant No.1 is a small farmer. Hence there are no merits in the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

iii) This issue casts legal burden on the plaintiff to prove that the suit promissory note is true and valid. To prove the same, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination­in­chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such the examination in chief of PW1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. In addition to that, PW1 exhibited Exs.A1 and A2. On perusal of

Ex.A1, it appears that P.Siva Nageswara Rao has borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/­ on 02­05­2019 and he has borrowed an amount of

Rs.90,000/­ on 7­7­2019. During the cross examination of PW1, it is elicited in the cross examination that he had not mentioned his avocation in his chief affidavit and he studied upto 10th class and he does not know

English. It is further elicited from PW1 that his chief affidavit was in

English language and as such he does not know the contents of the same and he own Agricultural lands situate at Gundimeda village an extent of

Ac.0.50 cents and also had house site at Chirravuru village. It is further elicited from PW1 that he used to earn Rs.40,000/­ per month. It is further elicited from PW1 that he had not mention about owning agricultural land in his chief affidavit and he can file documentary proof to show that he was running tent house and also own agricultural land if necessary. It is further elicited from PW1 that he filed the present suit against the deceased­Siva Nageswara Rao and he secured the amounts under Exhibits A1 and A2 from his tent house and the said Siva

Nageswara Rao was died and he does not know the exact date of his death. It is further elicited from PW1 that he had not mentioned the names of elders in his chief affidavit or in his plaint that he demanded the defendants to discharge the amounts due under Exhibits A1 and A2 after the death of said Siva Nageswara Rao. It is further elicited from

PW1 that he had not sent legal notice to the defendants demanding them to discharge the amounts due under Exhibits A1 and A2. It is further elicited from PW1 that one Parmisetti Siva Nageswara Rao is the scriber 8 of Exhibits A1 and A2 and Exhibits A1 and A2 transactions taken place at his house and the said transactions took place at 2.30 PM. It is further elicited from PW1 that there were two signatures in Exhibit A1 promissory note and he know one Pasupuleti Balaji resident of their village and he is running fertilizers business. It is further elicited from

PW1 that he does not know whether the said Balaji used to supply the fertilizers on credit basis by obtaining signatures on blank promissory notes. PW1 denied the suggestion that he know that the said Balaji used to supply the fertilizers on credit basis by obtaining signatures on blank promissory notes and due to harassment made by the said Balaji the deceased Siva Nageswara Rao committed suicide and he has no capacity to lend amount to the deceased Siva Nageswara Rao and he used to borrow amounts from his villagers and at the instance of said Balaji, he filed the present suit to get unlawful gain and he was deposing false. It is further elicited from PW1 that the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara rao died by committing suicide. On perusal of entire cross examination of

PW1, it is seen that nothing worth material is culled out on behalf of the defendants to prove their defence.

iv)To further discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff examined one Parimisetti Siva Nageswara Rao as PW2. Chief affidavit of

PW2 is nothing but replica of the plaint and PW2 in his chief affidavit further stated that he scribed two promissory notes in the presence of the plaintiff, attestors, the late P.Siva Nageswara Rao borrowed amounts from the plaintiff on the respective dates. During the cross examination of PW2, it is elicited from PW2 that he scribed about 10 to 15 promissory notes belonging to deceased Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao and he had not affixed his signature as an attestor in the promissory notes alleged to have been executed by deceased Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao in favour of alleged creditors. It is further elicited from PW2 that he was not having license to scribe promissory notes and the alleged suit transaction took place at the house of PW1. It is further elicited from PW2 that he had mentioned the place of transaction in his chief affidavit and the 9 deceased Siva Nageswara Rao had taken him to the house of PW1 in between 2.00 PM to 3.00 PM. It is further elicited from PW2 that he had not mentioned the same in his chief affidavit and each promissory note contains three signatures and one thumb mark. It is further elicited from

PW2 that the deceased Siva Nageswara Rao had brought the suit promissory notes and PW1 gave Rs.90,000/­ to deceased on 07­07­2019.

It is further elicited from PW2 that PW1 is doing agricultural work and also having Tent house. PW2 denied the suggestion that PW1 is not having capacity to lend amount to the deceased and the deceased had purchased pesticides from Balaji on credit basis and at that time, the said

Balaji obtained blank signed thumb impressions from the deceased and after the demise of Siva Nageswara Rao, the said Balaji gave two such promissory notes to PW1 and with the assistance of himself, attestors,

PW1 and Balaji exhibits A1 and A2 were filled and filed the present suit to get unlawful gain and also to knock away the property of the deceased and himself, the said Balaji and other creditors are the responsible for the death of Siva Nageswara Rao. It is further elicited from PW2 that in his presence only, the attestors and the borrower had affixed their signatures and thumb mark and the deceased Siva Nageswara Rao by committing suicide. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW2, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of

PW2 on behalf of the defendants to prove their defence.

v)To prove the defence taken by the defendants, the 1st defendant examined herself as DW1 and she filed her chief affidavit in lieu of her examination­in­chief and the chief affidavit of DW1 is nothing but the replica of written statement. During cross examination of DW1, it is elicited from DW1 that she was native of Chirravuru village and since 23 years, she was residing at Chirravuru village. It is further elicited from

DW1 that she know reading Telugu Language and she does not know writing Telugu, except her signature. It is further elicited from DW1 that she know plaintiff in the above suit. It is further elicited from DW1 that the plaintiff and others had filed suits for recovery of amounts said to 10 have been borrow by her husband. It is further elicited from DW1 that the plaintiff and other creditors, on 5th day ceremony of her husband, they came to her house and demanded them to repay the amount borrowed by her husband. she added that she does not know about the alleged suit transaction. It is further elicited from DW1 that she know

Parimisetty Siva Nageswara Rao since her childhood and she had not taken any legal action against the plaintiff, attestors and scribe as alleged suit promissory note is created and fabricated. If really the plaintiff and his henchmen were harassing the defendants, then what prevented DW1 to give report against them alleging that they are harassing the defendants. Hence the same makes the defence taken by DW1 dis believable. DW1 adds that the plaintiff demanded her husband in phone during his life time. It is further elicited from DW1 that above matter was placed before elders during life time of her husband and she had not filed copy of complaint before the Hon’ble court to show that the plaintiff and his elders tried to beat her husband. If really PW1 tried to beat the husband of the 1st defendant and DW1 has given complaint, then what prevented DW1 to give complaint copy before this court to prove the defence taken by DW1. It is further elicited from DW1 that her husband died due to heavy debts and she was not ready and willing to send the suit document for expert opinion. It is crystal clear that DW1’s husband has heavy debts. If really the husband of the 1st defendant has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, then what prevented DW1 to send Ex.A1 to handwriting expert to prove the defence taken by the defendants. Hence the same shows that the defence taken by the defendants is a feeble defence and thus casts serious shadow on the genuineness of the defendants story. 

vi) On perusal of entire deposition of PW1 and PW2, it is seen that the defendants have put suggestions to PW1 that there were financial transaction between deceased Siva Nageswara Rao and said

Balaji and to help the said Balaji, he got filled one promissory note in his name and the same was filed by him and he never advanced amount to 11 the deceased Siva Nageswara Rao. It is further seen that the defendants have put suggestions to PW2 that the said Balaji used to sell the pesticides on credit basis and at the time of selling pesticides, he used to take promissory notes from the agriculturists and at the instance of said

Balaji, the suit promissory note was fabricated. The said suggestions were not at all reflected as the defence of the defendants in the written statement as well as in the chief affidavit of DW1. The said suggestions were brought before the court during the cross examination for the first time. The defendants have not all disclosed about the said Balaji in their written statement and in the chief affidavit of DW1. The defence taken in the written statement and chief affidavit of DW1 is different from the defence taken during cross examination. Hence it shows that the defendants have taken feeble defence which has no legal stand and the defence taken by the defendants are not consistency and dis believable.

vii) On perusal of entire evidences adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant, it is seen that nothing worth material was elicited from the cross examination of PW’s 1 and 2 on behalf of the defendants to believe the defence taken by the defendants. The evidences of PW2 very well corroborates with the evidence of PW1. The defence taken by the defendants in the written statement and during cross examination of PW1 and PW2 quiet differs and it shows that they have taken feeble defence which has no legal weightage. The another contention of the defendants is that PW1 has not issued legal notice to them and Late P.Siva Nageswara Rao. As per Ex.A1, it shows that the late

P.Siva Nageswara Rao executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. PW1 stated in the plaint that he orally demanded the deceased and the defendants. Hence as per the said endorsement in Ex.A1, oral demand made by the plaintiff is sufficient.

Hence the said contention of the defendants is not tenable contentions.

PW1 deposed during his cross examination that Ex.A1 contains two signatures but PW2 deposed during his cross examination that there are 12 two signatures and one thumb impression in Ex.A1. These are minor discrepancies in the evidences of PW1 and PW2 which doesn’t falsify the contents of Ex.A1. The plaintiff very well proved that the suit promissory note is true and valid through his evidence and through the evidence of

PW2. Ex.A1 was unrebutted by the defendants. The defendants failed to prove their defence. Hence this point is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

8) ISSUE NO.2:

It is seen that the said late P.Siva Nageswara Rao was demised who has executed Ex.A1 in favor of the plaintiff and as the said P.Siva

Nageswara Rao has died, his legal heirs are liable to pay the suit amount from and out of the estate of the late P.Siva Nageswara Rao which is lying in the hands of the defendants. Hence this issue is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

9) ISSUE NO.3:

In view of the above discussion in Issue Nos.1 and 2, this court come to indomitable conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as sought for. Hence this point is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 

10) ISSUE NO.4:

In view of answering Issue Nos.1 to 3 in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, the suit has to be decreed. 

11)In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the defendants are liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,03,900/­ to the plaintiff along with further interest @ 12% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ and Rs.90,000/­ from the 13 date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization from and out of the estate of late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao which is lying in the hands of the defendants. 

Typed to my dictation by the personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 28th day of April, 2023.

Sd/­V.Sri Prathyusha. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri FAC, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. 

Appendix of evidence

witnesses examined

For plaintiff :­

PW1: Meduri Suri Babu. PW2: Parimisetti Siva Nageswara Rao. 

For defendants:­ 

DW1: Pasupuleti Nagulu. 

 Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff:­

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dated 02­05­2019 in favour of the plaintiff

Ex.A2: Original promissory note dated 07­07­2019 in favour of the plaintiff

Exhibits marked on behalf of the defendants:­ ­NIL­

Sd/­V.Sri Prathyusha. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri FAC, Principal Junior Civil Judge Mangalagiri.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

MANGALAGIRI.

PRESENT: ­ Ms.V. SRI PRATHYUSHA,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALAGIRI.

 FAC. PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

MANGALAGIRI.

FRIDAY, THE 28 th DAY OF APRIL, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.414/2021

Devisetty Nirmala. … Plaintiff

Vs 

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao having died and his L.Rs.,

1. Pasupuleti Nagulu.

2. Pasupuleti Praveen Kumar.

3. Pasupuleti Sai Kumar. 

4. Pasupuleti Dhana Lakshmi.

All are residents of D.No.2­222, Chirravuru village, 

Tadepalli Mandal,

Guntur District. … Defendants

This suit came before this court for final hearing on 12­04­2023 in the presence of Sri A.Ram Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of

Sri P. Nava Jeevan, Advocate for the Defendants and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T 

This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,00,533/­ being the principal and interest due on suit promissory note dated: 25­07­2019, for Rs.1,28,000/­ executed by the Late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., for subsequent interest and costs, from and out of the Estate of Late

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao lying in the hands of Defendants.

2

2) In a nutshell, The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :

On 25­07­2019 one Late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.1,28,000/­ from plaintiff and in evidence thereof, he executed promissory note for Rs.1,00,000/­ on the same day in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand at Chirravuru village of Tadepalli Mandal. The plaintiff personally approached the said

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao and requested him to repay the amount covered under said promissory notes. But, he did not choose to discharge the same on some pretext or other. The said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara

Rao died on 12­09­2020 leaving behind the defendants as his legal representatives upon whom the estate of the said Pasupuleti Siva

Nageswara Rao devolved. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators for repayment of debt contracted by the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, the defendants did not choose to repay the same on some pretext or other. Thereafter, inspite of the repeated demands of plaintiff, the defendants being the legal representatives of deceased Late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao and members of the said Hindu Undivided Family having inherited all his assets and estate. Hence the plaintiff is obliged to file the present suit. Hence the suit.

3) The 1st defendant filed his written statement and contended that the plaintiff did not file any document evidence or any name of the persons that he was approached the husband of defendant No.1 i.e,

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao during his lifetime and requested to settle the debt under the above suit promissory note and moreover when and where and also whose presence the plaintiff has approached the defendants and requested to settle the matter and after death of

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, the plaintiff did not give any legal notice to the defendants and also never approached the defendants and never 3 demand. It is more interesting story created by plaintiff towards the husband of defendant No.1 by way of created forgery and fabricated documents in favour of plaintiff that the promissory note of marked pronote scribed and attestors are not known to the defendants, but immediately after receipt of summons from the court the defendants made enquiry about the scribe and the attestors of the alleged promissory note are close associates and henchmen to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is habitual litigant in the village and hatched a plan with the scribe and attestors created forgery and fabricated documents in the name of the persons who were died and who are financially and numerically weaken persons in order to get wrongful gain. In this respect, the husband of defendant No.1 i.e, Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara

Rao made requisitions before the village elders, but the plaintiff and his men did not listen the words of village elders and also continuously harassing, humiliating in the public and also threatening to kill his family members i.e., defendants. So, that the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara

Rao was also approached and presented the report to the concerned police but the police did not take proper action against plaintiff and his men due to political financial and numerical strength of the plaintiff and their men. Under the above circumstances, the plaintiff and their men made harassment in an increasing manner, the same was not bearable by

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao and forced the husband of defendant

No.1 to commit suicide. So, the death of the said Pasupuleti Siva

Nageswara Rao amounts to murder under Section 306 of IPC, but after that also the plaintiff and their men managed the police and the same was registered as crime under suicide. The husband of defendant No.1 never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff for any others. There is no need to the husband of defendant No.1 to borrow the huge amounts as the husband of defendant No.1 is a small farmer. The suit promissory note did not disclose the column of all makam which means in which place the plaint promissory note was executed and so that this court has no 4 jurisdiction to entertain the plaint and the calculations of the suit promissory note are not correct as per the list of the documents and the promissory note was not sent to the forensic expert to compare the thumb impression of late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao and suit promissory note was created, forged and fabricated document in the name of deceased Siva Nageswara Rao and the deceased Siva Nageswara

Rao never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in his favour. Hence there are no merits in the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4)On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the marked suit promissory note dated:25­07­2019 for Rs.1,28,000/­ executed by deceased Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao in favour of plaintiff is true and valid ?

2. Whether the marked suit promissory note dated: 25­07­2019 for Rs.1,28,000/­

is binding on the defendants ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the estate of deceased Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao ?

4. To what relief ?

5) During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as

PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1. The plaintiff examined one Devisetty Siva

Nageswara Rao as PW2 and one Pirati Sambasiva Rao as PW3. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant examined herself as DW1. No documents were marked on behalf of the defendants. 

6)Heard both the sides arguments.

5 7) ISSUE NO .1:

i) The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that during the life time of Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, he had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,28,000/­ on 25­7­2019 from the plaintiff to meet his family necessities and personal needs, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a., for in evidence thereof, the said Pasupuleti Siva

Nageswara Rao has executed a two promissory notes on the respective days in favour of the plaintiff on 25­07­2019. To prove the same, PW1 exhibited Ex.A1. He has further contended that inspite of repeated oral request and demands made by the plaintiff during life time of the said late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, he did not choose to repay the same either principal nor interest due under the above said pronote. Mean while he died. Immediately after demise of the said Pasupuleti Siva

Nageswara Rao, the plaintiff had approached the defendants and requested to repay the debt due under the said promissory note which was executed by late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao but the defendants have been postponing the same with some pretext or other for reason best known to them only. Hence being a legal heirs of late Pasupuleti

Siva Nageswara Rao, the defendants are liable to discharge the debt due under the promissory note which was executed by late Pasupuletti Siva

Nageswara Rao in favour of the plaintiff. He has further contended that the plaintiff further examined scriber of Ex.A1 as PW2. The evidence of

PW2 very well corroborates with the evidence of PW1. The defendants failed to prove their case. Hence the plaintiff prayed this court to decree the suit.

ii) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants has contended that the plaintiff did not file any documentary evidence or any name of the persons that he was approached the husband of defendant

No.1 i.e, Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao during his lifetime and requested to settle the debt under the above suit promissory note and 6 moreover when and where and in whose presence, the plaintiff has approached the defendants and requested to settle the matter and after death of Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, and the plaintiff did not give any legal notice to the defendants and also never approached the defendants and never demanded the defendants. He has further contended that the plaintiff is habitual litigant in the village and hatched a plan with the scribe and attestors created forgery and fabricated documents in the name of the persons who were died and who are financially and numerically weaken persons in order to get wrongful gain. He has further contended that in this respect, the husband of defendant No.1 i.e, Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao made requisitions

before the village elders, but the plaintiff and his men did not listen the

words of village elders and also continuously harassing, humiliating in the public and also threatening to kill his family members i.e., defendants and so, that the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao has also approached and presented the report to the concerned police but the police did not take proper action against the plaintiff and his men due to political financial and numerical strength of the plaintiff and their men. He has further contended that the plaintiff and their men made harassment in an increasing manner, and the same was not bearable by Pasupuleti Siva

Nageswara Rao and forced the husband of defendant No.1 to commit suicide and so, the death of the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao amounts to murder under Section 306 of IPC, but after that also the plaintiff and their men managed the police and the same was registered as crime under suicide. He has further contended that the husband of defendant No.1 never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff for any others and there is no need to the husband of defendant No.1 to borrow the huge amounts as the husband of defendant No.1 is a small farmer. Hence there are no merits in the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

iii)This issue casts legal burden on the plaintiff to prove that the 7 suit promissory note is true and valid. To prove the same, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination­in­chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such the examination in chief of PW1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. In addition to that, PW1 exhibited Ex.A1. On perusal of Ex.A1, it appears that P.Siva Nageswara Rao has borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,28,000/­ on 25­07­2019. During the cross examination of PW1, it is elicited from PW1 that the plaintiff in OS.410/2021 by name Sumathi is also her villager and she was not an attestor in the promissory note alleged to have been executed by deceased Siva Nageswara Rao in favour of Sumathi. It is further elicited from PW1 that she used to attend agricultural coolie works and she used to get Rs.200/­ per day whenever she attend coolie works and she does not own any ancestral properties. It is further elicited from PW1 that she was depending on coolie amounts and she is an illiterate and she does not know Telugu and English reading and writing. It is further elicited from PW1 that her counsel had read over the contents of her chief affidavit and she advanced amount to deceased Siva Nageswara Rao and he is no more. It is further elicited from PW1 that she filed the present suit against the wife of deceased Siva

Nageswara Rao and she does not know the colour of ink used for filling

Exhibit A1 promissory note and five persons had put their signatures in

Exhibit A1 promissory note and she does not know the rate of interest mentioned in Exhibit A1 promissory note. It is further elicited from PW1 that she advanced amount of Rs.1,28,000/­ to deceased and she had sent legal notice. PW1 denied the suggestion that he has no financial capacity to advance amount and she know one Balaji resident of their village. It is further elicited from PW1 that she does not know whether the said Balaji is having agricultural fertilizer shop and she does not know whether the said Balaji used to sell the fertilizers to agriculturists on credit basis. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW1, it is seen that nothing worth material is culled out on behalf of the defendants to prove their defence.

8 iv)To further discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff examined one Devisetty Siva Nageswara Rao as PW2. Chief affidavit of PW2 is nothing but replica of the plaint and PW2 in his chief affidavit further stated that he and Meduri Lakshmi Narayana attested as attestors in the promissory note in the presence of the plaintiff, attestors, the late P.Siva

Nageswara Rao and the said late P.Siva Nageswara Rao borrowed amounts from the plaintiff in their presence. During the cross examination of PW2, it is elicited from PW2 that PW1 is resident of his village and as such he was having acquaintance with her and PW1 is eking life by doing coolie work and PW1 does not own any immovable properties stands in her name. It is further elicited from PW2 that PW1 used to attend agricultural coolie work and PW1 earns Rs.100/­ to 150/­ per day and the present suit was filed against the family members of

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao. It is further elicited from PW2 that he know the names of family members of deceased Siva Nageswara Rao.

Pasupuleti Nagulu, Pasupuleti Praveen Kumar, Pasupuleti Venkata Sai are the family members of deceased and on 25.07.2019, he affixed his signature as attestor in Ex.A1 promissory note and he know the entire contents of Ex.A1 promissory note. It is further elicited from PW2 that

Ex.A1 promissory note was filled with blue pen and Ex.A1 contains 3 signatures and one thumb impression and he know one Balaji. PW2 denied the suggestion that no such transaction took place as alleged by him and the said Balaji had filed the present suit against the L.Rs of deceased Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao through PW1 and PW1 has no capacity to lend amount and she is the henchmen of said Balaji and he was also the henchmen of said Balaji. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW2, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of PW2 on behalf of the defendants to prove their defence.

v) To further discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff examined one

Pirati Sambasiva Rao as PW3. Chief affidavit of PW3 is nothing but replica of the plaint and PW3 in his chief affidavit further stated that he 9 scribed promissory note in the presence of the plaintiff, attestors, the late P.Siva Nageswara Rao and the said late P.Siva Nageswara Rao borrowed amounts from the plaintiff in their presence. During the cross examination of PW3, it is elicited from PW3 that PW1 used to purchase medicines from their shop and as such he know her and at the request of

PW1, he came to court to depose evidence and PW1 filed the above suit for recovery of amount against the family members of deceased Siva

Nageswara Rao and PW1 is a house wife. It is further elicited from PW3 that the deceased Siva Nageswara Rao was died by committing suicide and Ex.A1 contains one Rs.1/­ revenue stamp and in Ex.A1, there were three signatures and one thumb impression. It is further elicited from

PW3 that he know Pasupuleti Balaji and he is doing fertilizers business and he does not know whether the said Balaji is in the habit of selling fertilizers on credit basis and he used to take blank signed promissory notes from the villagers. PW3 denied the suggestion that PW1 never advanced amount to deceased under Ex.A1 promissory note and PW1 is not having capacity to advance amount and the deceased Siva Nageswara

Rao is not having necessity to borrow amount from PW1 and he is deposing falsely and at the instance of said Balaji, PW1 filed the present suit and she obtained his signature prior to filing of the suit and he was not present at the time of alleged Ex.A1 transaction. It is further elicited from PW3 that he does not know the properties owned and possessed by

PW1. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW3, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of

PW3 on behalf of the defendants to prove their defence.

vi) To prove the defence taken by the defendants, the 1st defendant examined herself as DW1 and she filed her chief affidavit in lieu of her examination­in­chief and the chief affidavit of DW1 is nothing but the replica of written statement. During cross examination of DW1, it is elicited from DW1 that she was native of Chirravuru village and since 23 years, she was residing at Chirravuru village. It is further elicited from

DW1 that she know reading Telugu Language and she does not know 10 writing Telugu, except her signature. It is further elicited from DW1 that she know plaintiff in the above suit. It is further elicited from DW1 that the plaintiff and others had filed suits for recovery of amounts said to have been borrow by her husband. It is further elicited from DW1 that the plaintiff and other creditors, on 5th day ceremony of her husband, they came to her house and demanded them to repay the amount borrowed by her husband. she added that she does not know about the alleged suit transaction. It is further elicited from DW1 that she know

Parimisetty Siva Nageswara Rao since her childhood and she had not taken any legal action against the plaintiff, attestors and scribe as alleged suit promissory note is created and fabricated. If really the plaintiff and his henchmen were harassing the defendants, then what prevented DW1 to give report against them alleging that they are harassing the defendants. Hence the same makes the defence taken by DW1 dis believable. DW1 adds that the plaintiff demanded her husband in phone during his life time. It is further elicited from DW1 that above matter was placed before elders during life time of her husband and she had not filed copy of complaint before the Hon’ble court to show that the plaintiff and his elders tried to beat her husband. If really PW1 tried to beat the husband of the 1st defendant and DW1 has given complaint, then what prevented DW1 to give complaint copy before this court to prove the defence taken by DW1. It is further elicited from DW1 that her husband died due to heavy debts and she was not ready and willing to send the suit document for expert opinion. It is crystal clear that DW1’s husband has heavy debts. If really the husband of the 1st defendant has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, then what prevented DW1 to send Ex.A1 to handwriting expert to prove the defence taken by the defendants. Hence the same shows that the defence taken by the defendants is a feeble defence and thus casts serious shadow on the genuineness of the defendants story.

11 vii) On perusal of entire depositions of PW1 to PW3, it is seen that the defendants have put suggestions to PW1 that there were financial transaction between deceased Siva Nageswara Rao and said Balaji and to help the said Balaji, he got filled one promissory note in his name and the same was filed by him and he never advanced amount to the deceased Siva Nageswara Rao. It is further seen that the defendants have put suggestions to PW2 and PW3 that at the instance of balaji, PW1 has filed this present suit. The said suggestions were not at all reflected as the defence of the defendants in the written statement as well as in the chief affidavit of DW1. The said suggestions were brought before the court during the cross examination for the first time. The defendants have not all disclosed about the said Balaji in their written statement and in the chief affidavit of DW1. The defence taken in the written statement and chief affidavit of DW1 is different from the defence taken during cross examination. Hence it shows that the defendants have taken feeble defence which has no legal stand and the defence taken by the defendants are not consistency and dis believable.

 viii) On perusal of entire evidences adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant, it is seen that nothing worth material was elicited from the cross examination of PW’s 1 to 3 on behalf of the defendants to believe the defence taken by the defendants. The evidences of PW2 and PW3 very well corroborates with the evidence of PW1. The defence taken by the defendants in the written statement and during cross examination of PW1 and PW2 quiet differs and it shows that they have taken feeble defence which has no legal weightage. The another contention of the defendants is that PW1 has not issued legal notice to them and Late P.Siva Nageswara Rao. As per Ex.A1, it shows that the late

P.Siva Nageswara Rao executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. PW1 stated in the plaint that he orally demanded the deceased and the defendants. Hence as per the said endorsement in Ex.A1, oral demand made by the plaintiff is sufficient.

12

Hence the said contention of the defendants is not tenable contentions.

PW1 deposed during his cross examination that Ex.A1 contains five signatures but PW2 and PW3 deposed during their cross examination that there are three signatures and one thumb impression in Ex.A1.

These are minor discrepancies in the evidences of PW1 to PW3 which doesn’t falsify the contents of Ex.A1. The plaintiff very well proved that the suit promissory note is true and valid through his evidence and through the evidences of PW2 and PW3. Ex.A1 was unrebutted by the defendants. The defendants failed to prove their defence. Hence this point is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

8) ISSUE NO.2:

It is seen that the said late P.Siva Nageswara Rao was demised who has executed Ex.A1 in favor of the plaintiff and as the said P.Siva

Nageswara Rao has died, his legal heirs are liable to pay the suit amount from and out of the estate of the late P.Siva Nageswara Rao which is lying in the hands of the defendants. Hence this issue is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

9) ISSUE NO.3:

In view of the above discussion in Issue Nos.1 and 2, this court come to indomitable conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as sought for. Hence this point is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 

10) ISSUE NO.4:

In view of answering Issue Nos.1 to 3 in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, the suit has to be decreed. 

13

11) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the defendants are liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,533/­ to the plaintiff along with further interest @ 12% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.1,28,000 /­ from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization from and out of the estate of late Pasupuletti Siva Nageswara Rao which is lying in the hands of the defendants. 

Typed to my dictation by the personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 28th day of April, 2023.

Sd/­ V.Sri Prathyusha. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri FAC, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. 

Appendix of evidence

witnesses examined

For plaintiff :­

PW1: Devisetty Nirmala. PW2: Devisetty Siva Nageswara Rao. PW3: Pirati Sambasiva Rao. 

For defendants:­ 

DW1: Pasupuleti Nagulu. 

 Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff:­

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dated 25­07­2019 in favour of the plaintiff

Exhibits marked on behalf of the defendants:­ ­NIL­

Sd/­ V.Sri Prathyusha. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri FAC, Principal Junior Civil Judge Mangalagiri.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

MANGALAGIRI.

PRESENT: ­ Ms.V. SRI PRATHYUSHA,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALAGIRI.

 FAC. PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

MANGALAGIRI.

FRIDAY, THE 28 th DAY OF APRIL, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.429/2021

Neelam Sankara Rao. … Plaintiff

Vs 

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao having died and his L.Rs.,

1. Pasupuleti Nagulu.

2. Pasupuleti Praveen Kumar.

3. Pasupuleti Sai Kumar. 

4. Pasupuleti Dhana Lakshmi.

All are residents of D.No.2­222, Chirravuru village, 

Tadepalli Mandal,

Guntur District.

… Defendants

This suit came before this court for final hearing on 12­04­2023 in the presence of Sri A.Ram Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of

Sri P. Nava Jeevan, Advocate for the Defendants and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T 

 This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,53,000/­ being the principal and interest due on suit promissory note dated: 01­10­2019, for Rs.1,00,000/­ executed by the Late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., for subsequent interest and costs, from and out of the Estate of Late 2

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, lying in the hands of Defendants. 

2) In a nutshell, The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :

On 01­10­2019 one Late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from plaintiff and in evidence thereof, he executed promissory note for Rs.1,00,000/­ on the same day in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand at Chirravuru village of Tadepalli Mandal. The plaintiff personally approached the said

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao and requested him to repay the amount covered under said promissory notes. But, he did not choose to discharge the same on some pretext or other. The said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara

Rao died on 12­09­2020 leaving behind the defendants as his legal representatives upon whom the estate of the said Pasupuleti Siva

Nageswara Rao devolved. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators for repayment of debt contracted by the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, the defendants did not choose to repay the same on some pretext or other. Thereafter, inspite of the repeated demands of plaintiff, the defendants being the legal representatives of deceased Late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao and members of the said Hindu Undivided Family having inherited all his assets and estate. Hence the plaintiff is obliged to file the present suit. Hence the suit.

3) The 1st defendant filed his written statement and contended that the plaintiff did not file any document evidence or any name of the persons that he was approached the husband of defendant No.1 I.e,

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao during his lifetime and requested to settle the debt under the above suit promissory note and moreover when and where and also whose presence the plaintiff has approached the defendants and requested to settle the matter and after death of

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, the plaintiff did not give any legal notice 3 to the defendants and also never approached the defendants and never demand. It is more interesting story created by plaintiff towards the husband of defendant No.1 by way of created forgery and fabricated documents in favour of plaintiff that the promissory note of marked pronote scribed and attestos are not known to the defendants, but immediately after receipt of summons from the court the defendants made enquiry about the scribe and the attestors of the alleged promissory note are close associates and henchmen to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is habitual litigant in the village and hatched a plan with the scribe and attestors created forgery and fabricated documents in the name of the persons who were died and who are financially and numerically weaken persons in order to get wrongful gain. In this respect, the husband of defendant No.1 I.e, Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara

Rao made requisitions before the village elders, but the plaintiff and his men did not listen the words of village elders and also continuously harassing, humiliating in the public and also threatening to kill his family members i.e., defendants. So, that the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara

Rao was also approached and presented the report to the concerned police but the police did not take proper action against plaintiff and his men due to political financial and numerical strength of the plaintiff and their men. Under the above circumstances, the plaintiff and their men made harassment in an increasing manner, the same was not bearable by

Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao and forced the husband of defendant

No.1 to commit suicide. So, the death of the said Pasupuleti Siva

Nageswara Rao amounts to murder under Section 306 of IPC, but after that also the plaintiff and their men managed the police and the same was registered as crime under suicide. The husband of defendant No.1 never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff for any others. There is no need to the husband of defendant No.1 to borrow the huge amounts as the husband of defendant No.1 is a small farmer. The suit promissory note did not disclose the column of all makam which means in which place 4 the plaint promissory note was executed and so that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint and the calculations of the suit promissory note are not correct as per the list of the documents and the promissory note was not sent to the forensic expert to compare the thumb impression of late Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao and suit promissory note was created, forged and fabricated document in the name of deceased Siva Nageswara Rao and the deceased Siva Nageswar

Rao never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in his favour. Hence there are no merits in the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4)On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the marked suit promissory note dated:01­10­2019 for Rs.1,00,000/­ executed by deceased Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao in favour of plaintiff is true and valid ?

2. Whether the marked suit promissory note dated: 01­10­2019 for Rs.1,00,000/­

is binding on the defendants ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the estate of deceased Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao ?

4. To what relief ?

5) During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as

PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1. The plaintiff examined one Shaik Nagoor

Basha as PW2 and one Parimisetty Siva Nageswara Rao as PW3. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant examined herself as DW1. No documents were marked on behalf of the defendants. 

5

6)Heard both the sides arguments.

7) ISSUE NO .1:

i) The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that during the life time of Pasupuletti Siva Nageswara Rao, he had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ on 01­10­2019 from the plaintiff to meet his family necessities and personal needs, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a., for in evidence thereof, the said Pasupuletti Siva

Nageswara Rao has executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of the plaintiff on 01­10­2019. To prove the same, PW1 exhibited

Ex.A1. He has further contended that inspite of repeated oral request and demands made by the plaintiff during life time of the said late

Pasupuletti Siva Nageswara Rao, he did not choose to repay the same either principal nor interest due under the above said pronote. Mean while he died. Immediately after demise of the said Pasupuletti Siva

Nageswara Rao, the plaintiff had approached the defendants and requested to repay the debt due under the said promissory note which was executed by late Pasupuletti Siva Nageswara Rao but the defendants have been postponing the same with some pretext or other for reason best known to them only. Hence being a legal heirs of late Pasupuletti

Siva Nageswara Rao, the defendants are liable to discharge the debt due under the promissory note which was executed by late Pasupuletti Siva

Nageswara Rao in favour of the plaintiff. He has further contended that the plaintiff further examined scriber of Ex.A1 as PW2. The evidences of

PW2 and PW3 very well corroborates with the evidence of PW1. The defendants failed to prove their case. Hence the plaintiff prayed this court to decree the suit.

ii) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants has contended that the plaintiff did not file any documentary evidence or any name of the persons that he was approached the husband of defendant 6

No.1 i.e, Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao during his lifetime and requested to settle the debt under the above suit promissory note and moreover when and where and in whose presence, the plaintiff has approached the defendants and requested to settle the matter and after death of Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao, and the plaintiff did not give any legal notice to the defendants and also never approached the defendants and never demanded the defendants. He has further contended that the plaintiff is habitual litigant in the village and hatched a plan with the scribe and attestors created forgery and fabricated documents in the name of the persons who were died and who are financially and numerically weaken persons in order to get wrongful gain. He has further contended that in this respect, the husband of defendant No.1 i.e, Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao made requisitions

before the village elders, but the plaintiff and his men did not listen the

words of village elders and also continuously harassing, humiliating in the public and also threatening to kill his family members i.e., defendants and so, that the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao has also approached and presented the report to the concerned police but the police did not take proper action against the plaintiff and his men due to political financial and numerical strength of the plaintiff and their men. He has further contended that the plaintiff and their men made harassment in an increasing manner, and the same was not bearable by Pasupuleti Siva

Nageswara Rao and forced the husband of defendant No.1 to commit suicide and so, the death of the said Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara Rao amounts to murder under Section 306 of IPC, but after that also the plaintiff and their men managed the police and the same was registered as crime under suicide. He has further contended that the husband of defendant No.1 never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff for any others and there is no need to the husband of defendant No.1 to borrow the huge amounts as the husband of defendant No.1 is a small farmer. Hence there are no merits in the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

7 iii)This issue casts legal burden on the plaintiff to prove that the suit promissory note is true and valid. To prove the same, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination­in­chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such the examination in chief of PW1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. In addition to that, PW1 exhibited Ex.A1. On perusal of Ex.A1, it appears that P.Siva Nageswara Rao has borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/­ on 01­10­2019. During the cross examination of PW1, it is elicited from PW1 that he was eking life by doing agricultural work and he own one acre of land and he had mentioned the same in his chief affidavit. It is further elicited from PW1 that he can file the documents relating to his land if necessary and he used to earn Rs.150/­ to 200/­ per day and he filed the present suit against the family members of Siva

Nageswara Rao and the said Siva Nageswara Rao is no more. It is further elicited from PW1 that he demised about 2 to 3 years and he cannot say the date, month and year of death of the said Siva Nageswara Rao and he secured funds by selling his house and the same was advanced to deceased Siva Nageswara Rao and he had mentioned about securing of funds in his chief affidavit. It is further elicited from PW1 that he had informed about the lending amount, but he had not issued legal notice to the defendants demanding them to repay the amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note and one Parimisetty Siva Nageswararao is the scribe of

Ex.A1 promissory not and 5 persons had affixed signatures in Ex.A1 promissory note. It is further elicited from PW1 that Ex.A1 promissory note was filled with blue ink and he doesn’t know one Balaji and the said

Balaji is resident of Chinnaravuru and he doesn’t know the cause of death of said Siva Nageswara Rao. PW1 denied the suggestion that the deceased Siva Nageswara rao demised because of harassment made by said Balaji by committing suicide and he has no capacity to advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ and he used to borrow amounts from said Balaji and he indebted to several persons in his village and he have no capacity 8 to advance amount to deceased Siva Nageswara Rao and he is deposing falsely. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW1, it is seen that nothing worth material is culled out on behalf of the defendants to prove their defence.

iv)To further discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff examined one Shaik Nagoor Basha as PW2. Chief affidavit of PW2 is nothing but replica of the plaint and PW2 in his chief affidavit further stated that he and Meduri Lakshmi Narayana attested as attestors in the promissory note in the presence of the plaintiff, attestors, the late P.Siva Nageswara

Rao and the said late P.Siva Nageswara Rao borrowed amounts from the plaintiff in their presence. During the cross examination of PW2, it is elicited from PW2 that the present suit was filed by Neelam Sankara Rao against the wife and children of deceased­Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara

Rao. It is further elicited from PW2 that PW1 and himself are residents of same village and as such he was having acquaintance with him and he affixed his signature as 1st attestor in Exhibit A1 promissory note and he does not know one Pasupuleti Balaji. It is further elicited from PW2 that the suit transaction had taken place at the house of PW1 at Chirravuru in between 10.30 AM to 11.00 AM and he had not mentioned the time of transaction in his chief examination affidavit. PW2 denied the suggestion that the said Pasupuleti Balaji is the person behind the suit and he got filed the present suit through PW1 and the deceased Pasupuleti Siva

Nageswara Rao never executed suit promissory note in favour of PW1 in his presence and he was deposing falsely at the instance of PW1 and

Pasupuleti Balaji. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW2, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of PW2 on behalf of the defendants to prove their defence.

v)To further discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff examined one Parimisetty Siva Nageswara Rao as PW3. Chief affidavit of PW3 is nothing but replica of the plaint and PW3 in his chief affidavit further 9 stated that he scribed promissory note in the presence of the plaintiff, attestors, the late P.Siva Nageswara Rao and the said late P.Siva

Nageswara Rao borrowed amounts from the plaintiff in their presence.

During the cross examination of PW3, it is elicited from PW3 that he was the scribe of Exhibit A1 promissory note and Exhibit A1 transaction contains two signatures and one thumb impression and the suit transaction took place on 01­10­2019 at the house of PW1 in between 10.30 AM to 11.00 AM. PW3 denied the suggestion that the said

Pasupuleti Balaji is the person behind the suit and he got filed the present suit through PW1 and the deceased Pasupuleti Siva Nageswara

Rao never executed suit promissory note in favour of PW1 in his presence and he was deposing falsely at the instance of PW1 and Pasupuleti Balaji.

It is further elicited from PW3 that he had not mentioned the time of transaction in his chief examination affidavit. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW3, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of PW3 on behalf of the defendants to prove their defence.

vi) To prove the defence taken by the defendants, the 1st defendant examined herself as DW1 and she filed her chief affidavit in lieu of her examination­in­chief and the chief affidavit of DW1 is nothing but the replica of written statement. During cross examination of DW1, it is elicited from DW1 that she was native of Chirravuru village and since 23 years, she was residing at Chirravuru village. It is further elicited from

DW1 that she know reading Telugu Language and she does not know writing Telugu, except her signature. It is further elicited from DW1 that she know plaintiff in the above suit. It is further elicited from DW1 that the plaintiff and others had filed suits for recovery of amounts said to have been borrow by her husband. It is further elicited from DW1 that the plaintiff and other creditors, on 5th day ceremony of her husband, they came to her house and demanded them to repay the amount borrowed by her husband. she added that she does not know about the 10 alleged suit transaction. It is further elicited from DW1 that she know

Parimisetty Siva Nageswara Rao since her childhood and she had not taken any legal action against the plaintiff, attestors and scribe as alleged suit promissory note is created and fabricated. If really the plaintiff and his henchmen were harassing the defendants, then what prevented DW1 to give report against them alleging that they are harassing the defendants. Hence the same makes the defence taken by DW1 dis believable. DW1 adds that the plaintiff demanded her husband in phone during his life time. It is further elicited from DW1 that above matter was placed before elders during life time of her husband and she had not filed copy of complaint before the Hon’ble court to show that the plaintiff and his elders tried to beat her husband. If really PW1 tried to beat the husband of the 1st defendant and DW1 has given complaint, then what prevented DW1 to give complaint copy before this court to prove the defence taken by DW1. It is further elicited from DW1 that her husband died due to heavy debts and she was not ready and willing to send the suit document for expert opinion. The defendants have stated in their written statement that true facts will come into light when the suit promissory note is sent to Expert Opinion but the defendants failed to send Ex.A1 to Handwriting Expert for opinion. It is crystal clear from the evidence of DW1 that DW1’s husband has heavy debts. If really the husband of the 1st defendant has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, then what prevented DW1 to send Ex.A1 to handwriting expert to prove the defence taken by the defendants. Hence it shows that the defence taken by the defendants is a feeble defence and thus casts serious shadow on the genuineness of the defendants story. 

vii) On perusal of entire depositions of PW1 to PW3, it is seen that the defendants have put suggestions to PW1 that there were financial transaction between deceased Siva Nageswara Rao and said Balaji and to help the said Balaji, he got filled one promissory note in his name and the same was filed by him and he never advanced amount to the 11 deceased Siva Nageswara Rao. It is further seen that the defendants have put suggestions to PW2 and PW3 that at the instance of balaji, PW1 has filed this present suit. The said suggestions were not at all reflected as the defence of the defendants in the written statement as well as in the chief affidavit of DW1. The said suggestions were brought before the court during the cross examination for the first time. The defendants have not all disclosed about the said Balaji in their written statement and in the chief affidavit of DW1. The defence taken in the written statement and chief affidavit of DW1 is different from the defence taken during cross examination. Hence it shows that the defendants have taken feeble defence which has no legal stand and the defence taken by the defendants are not consistency and dis believable.

viii) On perusal of entire evidences adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant, it is seen that nothing worth material was elicited from the cross examination of PW’s 1 to 3 on behalf of the defendants to believe the defence taken by the defendants. The evidences of PW2 and PW3 very well corroborates with the evidence of PW1. The defence taken by the defendants in the written statement and during cross examination of PW1 to PW3 quiet differs and it shows that they have taken feeble defence which has no legal weightage. The another contention of the defendants is that PW1 has not issued legal notice to them and Late P.Siva Nageswara Rao. As per Ex.A1, it shows that the late

P.Siva Nageswara Rao executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. PW1 stated in the plaint that he orally demanded the deceased and the defendants. Hence as per the said endorsement in Ex.A1, oral demand made by the plaintiff is sufficient.

Hence the said contention of the defendants is not tenable contentions.

PW1 deposed that Ex.A1 contains five signatures but PW3 deposed that there are two signatures and one thumb impression in Ex.A1. These are minor discrepancies in the evidences of PW1 and PW3 which doesn’t 12 falsify the contents of Ex.A1. The plaintiff very well proved that the suit promissory note is true and valid through his evidence and through the evidences of PW2 and PW3. Ex.A1 was unrebutted by the defendants.

The defendants failed to prove their defence. Hence this point is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

8) ISSUE NO.2:

It is seen that the said late P.Siva Nageswara Rao was demised who has executed Ex.A1 in favor of the plaintiff and as the said P.Siva

Nageswara Rao has died, his legal heirs are liable to pay the suit amount from and out of the estate of the late P.Siva Nageswara Rao which is lying in the hands of the defendants. Hence this issue is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

9) ISSUE NO.3:

In view of the above discussion in Issue Nos.1 and 2, this court come to indomitable conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as sought for. Hence this point is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 

10) ISSUE NO.4:

In view of answering Issue Nos.1 to 3 in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, the suit has to be decreed. 

11)In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the defendants are liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,53,000/­ to the plaintiff along with further interest @ 12% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization from and out 13 of the estate of late Pasupuletti Siva Nageswara Rao which is lying in the hands of the defendants. 

Typed to my dictation by the personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 28th day of April, 2023.

Sd/­ V.Sri Prathyusha. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri FAC, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. 

Appendix of evidence

witnesses examined

For plaintiff :­

PW1: Neelam Sankara Rao. PW2: Shaik Nagoor Basha. PW3: Parimisetty Siva Nageswara Rao.

For defendants:­ 

DW1: Pasupuleti Nagulu. 

 Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff:­

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dated 01­10­2019 in favour of the plaintiff

Exhibits marked on behalf of the defendants:­ ­NIL­

Sd/­ V.Sri Prathyusha. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri FAC, Principal Junior Civil Judge Mangalagiri.