Vacant Fac S.kamalakar Reddy, Secretary, Dlsa

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT:- Sri S.Kamalakar Reddy, Secretary, DLSA, Ananthpauram FAC Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Monday, the 6th day of November, 2017

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 249/2014

Between:

Dalavayi Bhasker ..Plaintiff.

And

Smt. S.Ghpusia

..Defendant .

This suit coming on 02.11.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri E.Balakrishna, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri B.Ravi Prasad, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing on both sides and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Suit is filed for recovery of amount on the basis of Registered

Mortgage Deed dated 15.05.2012.

2.The averments of the plaint as follows:

Smt.S.Gousia (defendant) borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from

Dalavayi Bhasker (plaintiff) for her family necessities and business purpose, agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24 % p.a. The defendant executed registered simple mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff on the same day i.e., 15.05.2012. Inspite of repeated demands the defendant failed to pay any amount either towards the principal or towards the interest. The plaintiff got issued legal notice on 07.04.2014, but there was no response from the defendant. Thus the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit for recovery of amount of Rs.1,48,000/- which includes

principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and interest thereon.

3. On the other hand, the defendant filed written statement denying the plaint allegations. She submitted that she had borrowed a sum of

Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 12.04.2012 by mortgaging the plaint schedule property. However she discharged the said debt on 15.05.2012 by 2 paying the entire amount. After receiving the entire amount covered under mortgage deed dated 12.04.2012, the plaintiff created the present mortgage deed. Defendant herein is an illiterate, knows only to sign in Telugu, but does not know reading Telugu. Taking advantage of the innocence of defendant, the plaintiff got created the present mortgage deed. No demands made by the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. The office copy of notice and the acknowledgement card are created for the purpose of the suit.

The defendant ultimately prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

4. On the basis of the pleadings this court formulated the following issues :

1.Whether the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from he plaintiff on 15.05.2012?

2.Whether the defendant executed a registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff on 15.05.2012?

3.Whether the defendant is entitled for the suit claim?

4. To what relief ?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW.1 and examined the attestor ( identifying witness) P.Ravi as PW.2. He got marked Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.4 documents.

6. After closure of the plaintiff's side evidence, the defendant herself examined as DW.1 and marked Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 documents. No other witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant. Hence the evidence was closed.

7. I heard arguments on both sides.

Issues 1 to 3 :

1.Whether the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.05.2012?

2.Whether the defendant executed a registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff on 15.05.2012?

3.Whether the defendant is entitled for the suit claim?

3

8. Since issues 1 to 3 are interconnected they are clubbed and discussed here under.

9. No we see evidence available on record;

PW.1 is the plaintiff D.Bhaskar. He filed his chief affidavit which is in the lines of the plaint. He got marked Ex.A.1 Mortgage deed, Ex.A.2 Office copy of legal notice, Ex.a.3 Postal Receipt and Ex.A.4 postal acknowledgement card.

10. In the cross-examination she deposed as follows:

He is a labour contractor getting Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. The defendant was his neighbour and he lent the amount on 15.05.2012 obtained registered mortgage deed. Prior to this transaction he had also lent amounts twice. For that she has executed promissory notes.

He denied that he lent an amount of Rs.50,000/- and got a mortgage deed

dated 12.04.2012. However, he admitted the signatures in mortgage deed

dated 12.04.2012 and it was marked as Ex.B.1. This witness deposed that

under the Ex.B.1 mortgage deed he lent amount to the husband of the defendant. The defendant mortgaged the property under Ex.A.1 and borrowed the amount. He denied that on 15.05.2012 the defendant approached him for cancellation of Ex.A.1 Mortgage deed. He return the documents to the defendant when she repaid his Rs.50,000/-. One Ravi and

Suryanarayana Reddy signed as attesting witnesses. He lent the amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- at Register Office. He denied that he did not give any financial assistance to the defendant that taking advantage of illiteracy of the defendant he got the mortgage deed executed. On 07.04.2014 his advocate got issued a legal notice vide Ex.B.2 demanding payment of amount.

PW.2 is one P.Ravi. He filed his chief affidavit supporting the contention of the plaintiff stated in his chief that on 15.05.2012 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the defendant executed mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff.

In his cross-examination he stated that he knew both the plaintiff and defendant and her husband for the past 10 years that there were money 4 transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant. On 15.10.2012 the defendant came to Sub-Registrar Office for cancellation of earlier mortgage deed. However, he denied that the plaintiff used the signatures for the purpose of present suit transaction. After receiving the amount the defendant executed the mortgage deed. He denied that the defendant is not due any amount to the plaintiff at any time. One Suryanarayana Reddy signed in

Ex.A.1 Mortgage Deed.

DW.1 is the defendant herself. She filed her chief affidavit which is in the lines of her written statement. Her stand is that she had borrowed amount of Rs.50,000/- on 12.04.2012 that to repay the amount and cancel the mortgage deed she went to Registrar Officer on 15.05.2012 that taking advantage of her illiteracy the plaintiff obtained signatures in the Ex.A.1

Mortgage Deed that no consideration was passed.

When its come to cross-examination she admitted that she did not inform the Sub-Registrar or that she is filed any suit for cancellation of

Ex.A.1 Mortgage Deed. She received notice on 07.04.2013, but she did not get issue any reply notice nor filed any suit for cancellation of suit document. She denied that she did not get it mentioned in her written statement that she repaid the amount.

11. The suit is filed for recovery of amount on the basis of registered mortgage deed dated 15.05.2012. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- on 15.05.2012 and executed the Ex.A.1

Mortgage Deed. Since she failed to repay the amount, he got issued legal notice and later filed the suit. However the defendant on the other hand contends that on 15.05.2012 she went to the Sub-Registrar Office to cancel the earlier registered mortgage deed dated 12.04.2012 for Rs.50,000/-.

Taking advantage of her illiteracy the plaintiff obtained the signatures in the

Ex.A.1 Mortgage Deed and filed the present suit.

5

12. The evidence of PW.1 goes to show that he paid amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- on 15.05.2012 and got simple mortgage deed in his favour.

PW.2 is identifying witness in the Ex.A.1 Mortgage deed. He supported the contention of the plaintiff. The evidence of DW.1 in the cross-examination is very important. She deposed that she was there at Sub-Registrar Office,

Ananthauram on 15.05.2012 whole day with her husband, the plaintiff, Ravi (PW.2). Her stand is that to cancel the Ex.B.1 Register Mortgage Deed dated 12.04.2012 she went to the Sub-Registrar Office. So she admits the signature in the Ex.A.1 Mortgage Deed saying that she put the signature with an intention to cancel the earlier registered mortgage deed dated 12.04.2012. If she had put the signature in the mortgage deed only with an intention to cancel the earlier mortgage deed dated 12.04.2012, however her subsequent conduct would not show that the signature was put only for cancellation of document. She admits that on 15.05.2012 PW.2 Ravi, her husband and she were present at Sub-Registrar Office through out day. She did not enquire with the Sub-Registrar Officer what for she was putting signature. It is the usual practice that the Sub-Registrar will apprise the executant of the document as to what for the document is being registered and as to whether she received any amount under the document or not. If she is an illiterate her husband was accompanied to over see the entire transaction/ registration. Her husband is not examined to support her version . Further more she admits that she received a legal notice before filing the suit, but she did not make any efforts to show that the Ex.A.1 Registered

Mortgage Deed is canceled. Though she admits the signature in the Ex.A.1, she says that no consideration was passed that she put her signature in

Ex.A.1 under the impression that by her signature the earlier mortgage deed is going to be cancelled. But, the defendant failed to establish that she had repaid the earlier amount and put her signature in the Ex.A.1 only to cancel the mortgage deed.

13. The evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant is insufficient and does not establish the stand of the defendant. She failed to establish that 6 she had paid Rs.50,000/- under Ex.B.1 Mortgage Deed dated 12.04.2012.

She failed to establish that she put her signature only under the impression that by her signature the earlier mortgage deed dated 12.04.2012 vide

Ex.B.1 is going to be cancelled. So whatever the stand taken by the defendant has not been proved. The Ex.A.1 is the registered mortgage deed supported by the identifying witness. The transaction between the plaintiff and defendant has been established with the help of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 documents and with the help of evidence of PW.2. The evidence of defendant is very scanty unable to prove her stand. There is no material to conclude that defendant had repaid the amount that she had put her signature only for cancellation of earlier document , but not otherwise. The evidence available on record leaning in favour of the plaintiff to show that the defendant borrowed the amount and she failed to pay the amount. Thus, I am of the view that the plaintiff lend the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- that the defendant borrowed the amount and executed Ex.A.1 mortgage deed.

Issues 1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

14. Issue No.4: To what relief?

For the reasons narrated in Issue No.1 and 2 I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed for.

In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs for

Rs.1,48,000/- ( Rupees one lakh forty eight thousand only) against the defendant. The defendant is directed to pay the suit amount of Rs.1,48,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of decree and 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization over the principle sum of Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rupees one lakh only).Time for redemption four months.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this 6th day of November, 2017.

Secretary, DLSA, Ananthapuram FAC Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

7 Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW.1 : D.Bhaskhar DW.1: S.Gousia PW.2: P.Ravi

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A.1 : Registered simple mortgage deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dt 15.05.2012 Ex.A.2: Office copy of the legal notice dated 7.4.2014 Ex.A.3: Postal receipt dt 7.04.2014 Ex.A.4: Postal Acknowledgement card dated 8.4.2014

Exhibits marked for defendant

Ex.B.1: Mortgage dee d dated 12.04.2012 Ex.B.2: Office copy of legal notice dated 7.4.2014

P.S.C.J.

1 THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT:- Sri S.Kamalakar Reddy, Secretary, DLSA, Ananthauram, FAC. Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu

Friday, the 3rd day of November, 2017

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 423/2014

Between:

M.Siva Reddy ..Plaintiff

And

A.Chand Basha. .. Defendant

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Bhaskar Ravi Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri S.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy and SriK. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing both sides and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed for recovery of amount of Rs.2,04,192/- on basis of A to D promissory notes.

2.The averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- for his family necessities on 18.07.2011 and executed 'A' marked promissory note.

The defendant again borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the evening hours for his family necessities on 18.07.2011 and executed 'B' marked promissory note.

The defendant again borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/- for his family necessities on 11.10.2011 and executed 'C' marked promissory note.

The defendant again borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/- for his family necessities on 05.11.2011 and executed 'D' marked promissory note.

Inspite of repeated demands the defendant failed to pay any amount covered under A to D marked promissory notes. A legal notice was issued and it was served on 02.05.2014, but there was no response. Therefore, the suit is filed for recovery of amount of Rs.2,04,192/- which includes the

principal as well as interest thereon.

2

3.On the other hand the defendant filed the written statement denying the plaint allegations. He stated in the written statement that there were no financial transactions between he and the plaintiff, thus the question of execution of promissory notes by him does not arise. The A to D marked promissory notes are concocted and got up documents for the purpose of filing the suit. The signatures over the promissory notes are not his signatures.

He ultimately prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, this court has formulated the following issues:

1.Whether the suit pronotes are forged and fabricated documents?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim ?

3. To what relief?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW.1 and examined one Raghunatha Reddy as PW.2. The plaintiff got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 documents.

6. After closure of the plaintiff's side evidence, the defendant A.Chand

Basha himself examined as DW.1, but no documents marked on his behalf.

7. I heard arguments on both sides.

8. THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD IS AS FOLLOWS:

PW.1 filed his chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the plaint and marked A to D marked promissory notes as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4, Office copy of legal notice as Ex.A.5, and Acknowledgement Card as Ex.A.6.

In the cross-examination he deposed that the defendant works in R & B

Department. The defendant borrowed amount under A to D promissory notes. When the defendant borrowed on 18.07.2011 Raghunatha Reddy and 3 Y.Bhaskara Reddy were present. On 05.11.2011 and on 11.10.2011

Raghunatha Reddy and Bhaskar Reddy were present at the time of lending amount. Raghunatha Reddy scribed the pronote on 18.07.2011 and the defendant himself scribed the other pronotes. The defendant affixed his signatures to the promissory notes. The defendant paid Rs.6000/- after issuing legal notice to him, but he did not remember the date and the same is not mentioned in the plaint. He denied that he had no necessity to borrow the amount that Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 documents are created that he doesn't have means to lend such huge amount.

PW.2 Y.Raghunatha Reddy one of the attestor in the promissory notes. He filed his chief affidavit which is in the lines of supporting PW.1.

In the cross-examination he admitted that the plaintiff used to come to his hotel. He knew Bhaskar Reddy also. His Swaroopa hotel situated at

Srikantham Circle. He did not know another attesting witness Bhaskar Reddy.

The plaintiff is doing cultivation, but he did not know whether the plaintiff was doing finance business. He further deposed the transactions that took place under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 document. He denied that the defendant did not borrowed any amount that Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 are created. He did not enquire whether or not the defendant paid any amount to the plaintiff on 18.07.2011. He denied that he was doing finance business with the plaintiff that he was deposing falsely.

After closure of the plaintiffs side evidence, the defendant himself examined as DW.1. He filed his chief affidavit denying the plaintiffs case. He stated that he never borrowed any amount that he got registered a criminal case against the plaintiff. He further stated in the chief affidavit that the plaintiff filed other suit vide O.S. 10/2015 for recovery of amount

Rs.2,88,450/-. However he failed to file any document to support his contention.

Surprisingly in the cross-examination he deposed that all the four promissory notes were executed by him after borrowing the amounts for his 4 family necessities. He did not make any part payment under four promissory notes that he did not have any enmity with the plaintiff. No further evidence was reported by the defendant counsel.

8. Issue Nos.1 and 2:

1.Whether the suit pronotes are forged and fabricated documents?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim ?

The suit is filed for recovery of amount on the basis of A to D promissory notes. The plaintiff contends that the defendant borrowed the amount for his family necessities on 18.07.2011, 11.10.2011 and 05.11.2011 vide Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 documents. Since the defendant failed to pay the amount he got issued a legal notice on 30.04.2014 and the notice was served. Ex.A.5 is the notice and Ex.A.6 is the Acknowledgement card.

PW.2 is attestor in Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 documents.

9. The promissory note is a negotiable instrument does not require any attestation. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 are printed promissory notes fit in to the definition of the promissory notes. The presumption as contemplated U/Sec.

118 of Negotiable Instrument Act is in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed Ex.A.1 to A.4 documents and examined Pw.2 to support his stand in respect of Ex.A.1 and A.2 promissory notes, to which the cross-examination was done, but Pw.1 withstand the cross-examination. Nothing was elicited to doubt the Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 promissory notes.

10. PW.1 deposed in his cross-examination that the defendant paid

Rs.6,000/- after issuing legal notice. However, the same was not endorsed on the back side of the pronote nor mentioned in the paint. Nothing was shown or elicited from the PW.1 that the amount of Rs.6,000/- is in connection with part payment of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 Promissory Notes. The defendant admitted that he borrowed the amounts from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 promissory notes. Admission of DW.1 clearly established that he borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and executed the 5 Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 promissory notes. So, the evidence of PW.1, admission of

DW.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 documents establish the stand of the plaintiff.

There is no evidence to deny the decree in favour of the plaintiff. There is no evidence to support the stand of the defendant. The following decisions are relied upon.

1).In a decision held between:-

Inuganti Venkata Ramamurthy Vs Itham Sreeramamurthy

reported in 2007 (1) ALT page 443,

Their lordship at Paragraph No.10 held as follows:- “When once the signature on the Ex.A1 is admitted by the

defendant, the only question that requires to be gone into is as to

whether the Ex.A1 was executed under the circumstances as

explained in the plaint or as per the explanation offered by the

defendant”.

In the instant case the defendant admitted that he executed Ex.A.1 to

A.4 promissory notes.

2) In another decision held between:-

Duggineni Seshagiri Rao Vs Kottapalli Venkateswara Rao

Reported in 2001 (6) ALT Page 95

Their lordship at Paragraph No.6 held that:- “When a person signs and delivers to another person a paper

stamped in accordance with the law relating to Negotiable

Instrument it becomes a Negotiable Instrument even if it is wholly

blank or written with incomplete particulars”.

In the present case, the defendant admitted that the signatures in the

Ex.A1- to A.4 Promissory notes are that of his signature. So according to him the consideration under Ex.A1 to Ex.A.4 was passed which is a valid consideration under the law.

6

3) In a decision reported in:-

Duggineni Seshagiri Rao vs Kottapalli Venkateswara Rao

reported in 2001 (6) ALT Page 95,

Their lordship at Paragraph No.8 that:-

“If the document was disputed or doubted the onus was on the

defendant to show that the document was a forged one because of

the presumption is in favour of the plaintiff U/s 118 of Negotiable

Instrument Act”.

The defendants in this case admitted execution of the A to D promissory notes.

11. Considering all these factors and the cited Judgments I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed for, as he able to establish that Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 documents are executed by the defendant.

12. The issues 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

13. Issue No.3: To what relief ?

14. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.2,04,192/- ( Rupees two lakhs four thousand one hundred and ninety two only) against the defendant. The defendant is directed to pay the suit amount of

Rs.2,04,192/- with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of decree and 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization over the principle sum of

Rs.1,20,000/- ( Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only).

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this 3rd day of November, 2017.

Secretary,

DLSA, Ananthapuram,

FAC Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram.

7 Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW.1 : M.Siva Reddy DW.1.A.Chand Basha PW.2 : Y.Raghunatha Reddy

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A.1 : A marked suit pronote dt 18.07.2011 Ex.A.2 : B marked suit pronote dt 18.07.2011 Ex.A.3 : C marked suit pronote dt 11.10.2011 Ex.A.4 : D marked suit pronote dt 05.11.2011 Ex.A.5 : Office copy of legal notice dt 30.04.2014 Ex.A.6 : Original postal served acknowledgement dt. 2.05.2014.

Exhibits marked for defendant

- Nil -

P.S.C.J.

8

1

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

Case No. :OS/0000283/2017 S Siva Reddy Vs Smt Kancdhamreddy Malleswaramma

Date : 06-11-2017

Business: Chief of PW1 filed and it is recorded into his evidence. Ex.A1 to A4 are marked. No further evidence reported. Hence closed. Hence for judgment at 2.00 p.m., Perused the record. Judgment pronounced. (VSJ) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs infavour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.4,84,000/- with future interest at 12 percent p.a. from the date of the suit till the date decree, and thereafter at 6 percent p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. Nature of : DECREED WITH COSTS Disposal Disposal Date: 06-11-2017 Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

1

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

Case No. :OS/0000041/2011 Madarsa-E-Faizul Uloom Trust Vs G.Venkatanaidu, 48 y

Date : 06-11-2017

Business: P.W.1 absent. No representation. Costs of Rs.100/- not paid. The plaintiff failed Appear inspite of number of adjournments on costs. It appears that the plaintiff has no interest to proceed the case. Hence the suit is dismissed for default. Nature of : DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Disposal Date: 06-11-2017 Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

1

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

Case No. :OS/0000585/2016 The State Bank of india Vs Chimbli Sriramulu

Date : 06-11-2017

Business: Both parties present. Matter settled in Lok- adalath. Nature of : SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Disposal Date: 06-11-2017 Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur