Sri Y .gopala Krishna

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR

DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

Present : SRI Y.GOPALA KRISHNA,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur. FAC Prl. Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Guntur.

Monday, the 9th day of December, 2024

O.S.No.478/2017

Between:-

1. Yangalasetty Tirupathaiah, S/o Narasaiah, 51 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Ramanamakshetram, 2nd line, D.No.24-8-590, Guntur, Guntur District. (Died)

2. Yangalasetty Naga Lakshmi, W/o Late Yangalasetty Tirupathaiah, Hindu, House wife, aged about 33 years, R/o Door No.25-6-6,4th Line, R-Agraharam, Guntur.

3. Yangalasetty Sai Teja, S/o Late Yangalasetty Tirupathaiah, Hindu, aged about 19 years, student, r/o Door No.25-6-6, 4th line, R-Agraharam, Guntur.

. . . Plaintiffs.

And

1. Yangalasetty Swarajyamma, W/o Narasaiah, 83 years, Hindu, House wife, C/o Yangalasetty Appa Rao, R/o Ramanamakshetram, 2nd line, D.No.24-8-590, Guntur, Guntur District.

2. Yangalasetty Appa Rao, S/o Narasaiah, 53 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Ramanamakshetram, 2nd Line, D.No.24-8- 590, Guntur, Guntur District.

3. Angajala Krishna Vandana, w/o Sankara Rao, 49 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o 7th line, Syamala Nagar, Guntur.

4. Gudiseva Suguna, W/o Saibaba, 45 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o Benz Circle, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

. . . Defendants. -o0o-

This suit came before me on 3.12.2024 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri S. Saibaba, Advocate for plaintiff, Sri D. Uma Maheswara Rao, Advocate for defendants 1 and 2; and defendants 3 to 5 having remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for partition of plaint schedule property into six equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs.

2. The main case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that;

i) First plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are children first defendant and Narasaiah. First defendant got the suit schedule property from her parents. Since then she has been enjoying the same with absolute rights.

ii) the suit schedule property situated near Darga N.H.5 road in Guntur city. Presently she is getting rents of

Rs.13,000/- per month. Earlier there was road extension of road. At that time government acquired 45 sq. yards of land and awarded Rs.38,00,000/- as compensation in the name of first defendant. Immediately those bonds were taken by second defendant and sold away in private transaction and enjoyed the same by second defendant only. Even though first defendant is not in sane condition, second defendant managed the government people and took the bonds in the name of first defendant. First defendant is suffering with loss of memory.

Second defendant is collecting rent on behalf of first defendant and enjoying the same for his own purpose. First defendant does not know anything about the amounts of rents and compensation, which was collected and misused by second defendant.

iii) Second defendant secretly proclaiming to his kith and kin he will get schedule property registered in his name.

When second defendant went to the Sub Registrar office along with the first defendant and tried to get it registered in his name, the Sub Registrar refused to register as her mental condition is bad,. Hence, this suit is filed for partition of schedule property into six equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs.

3.During pendency of suit first plain died intestate leaving behind his wife and children and they were impleaded as plaintiffs 2 and 3 respectively. They are entitled 1/6th share in the suit schedule property.

4. On the other hand, defendants 1 and 2 resisted the claim of plaintiffs by filing written statement, admitting relationship and acquisition of part of land of first defendant by government and awarding compensation, while denying other allegations in the plaint. The main case of defendants 1 and 2, in brief, is that:

i) Originally plaint schedule property is part part of 249 sq.

yards of site and the same was gifted by her mother Tulasi

Ademma to the first defendant under registered gift deed

dated 2.3.1974. First defendant accepted the same and took

possession of the said property. Out of 249 sq. yards, government acquired some of the property of first defendant. Except her, no body have title, title or possession over the same. So, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim right over the said property.

ii) First defendant is staying with second defendant for past four years and looking after the welfare of her welfare.

As second defendant is looking after the welfare of first defendant, she gifted an extent of 189 ½ sq. yards of site and MTC Daba and Zinc sheet shed therein to the second defendant under registered gift deed dated 9.1.2015. First defendant executed said document in a sound and disposing state of mind and as per her wish. Since the date of possession of the property second defendant has been enjoying the same with absolute rights and possession and it is also known to the first plaintiff. Though first plaintiff has no right over the schedule property, he filed this present suit for partition with an intention to grab the property. Hence, they urged the court to dismiss the suit.

6. After hearing both sides and based on the above pleadings, my learned predecessor framed the following issues:

1.Whether the plaintiff and defendant constitute joint family ?

2.Whether the plaint schedule property is joint family property of plaintiff and defendant ?

3.Whether the plaint schedule property is to be divided into 5 equal shares ?

4.Whether the part of plaint schedule property is gifted to 1st defendant, dated 2.3.1974 her mother Tulasi Ademma and self acquired property of first defendant ?

5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession as prayed for ?

6.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profit as prayed for ?

7.To what relief ?

Either plaintiffs or defendants have not claimed plaintiffs and defendants constituted joint family. But unnecessarily issued no.1 was framed as if plaintiffs claimed that they and defendants constituted as joint family. Without plea either in the plaint or pleadings, and denial on the other side no issue shall be framed.

Therefore, this issue has to be struck off.

6.Or.14, R.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure1 empowers the

Court to framed an additional issue/recast the issue at any stage of suit before pronouncing judgment.

7.In view of the above facts and circumstances and

U/Or.14, R.5 of the Code, above issue no.1 is struck off.

It is the matter on record after impleading 5th defendant, plaintiffs amended the relief for partition of schedule property into six equal shares in the place of five equal shares. But issue no.3 is not recasted in consonance to the amended relief.

Similarly plaintiffs 2 and 3 are impleaded after death of first plaintiff. But issue Nos.5 and 6 are not amended in consonance to amended plaint. So, it has to be recasted.

In view of the above facts and circumstances and U/Or.14, R.5 of the Code, above issue no.3 is recasted as follows:.

Issue No.3.Whether the plaint schedule property is to be divided into 6 equal shares ?

In view of the above facts and circumstances and U/Or.14, R.5 of the Code, above issue Nos. 5 and 6 are recasted as follows:.

Issue No.5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession as prayed for ?

Issue No.6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne 1For brevity, “the Code” profit as prayed for ?

11.At the trial, the plaintiff examined PWs 1 and 2 while relying on Ex. A1. On the other hand, defendant examined DWs 1 to 3 and no document is marked.

12. Heard arguments on both sides.

13. Perused the record.

Admitted facts:

14. Before delving into the above issues, it is apropos to mention the admitted facts observed by this court on perusing the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence as follows:

i) First defendant and Narasaiah are wife and husband.

ii) First plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 are their children.

iii) Narasaiah died long back.

iv) During pendency of suit first plaintiff died and his wife (2nd plaintiff) and his son (third plaintiff) were impleaded.

v) Mother of first defendant by name Ademma executed registered gift deed on 2.3.1974.

vi)The government acquired part of gift deed schedule while widening the road and awarded compensation to the first defendant.

vii)First defendant has been living with second defendant.

She executed gift deed of 189 ½ sq. yards of schedule property to the second defendant.

ISSUE No.2 and 4:

2. Whether the plaint schedule property is joint family property of plaintiff and defendant ?

4. Whether the part of plaint schedule property is gifted to 1st defendant, dated 2.3.1974 her mother Tulasi Ademma and self acquired property of first defendant ?

15.The above two issues are interconnected to each other.

For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion they are discussed together.

16.Learned counsel for plaintiffs vehemently argued that mother of first defendant by name Ademma executed gift deed in favour of first defendant and her children with absolute right and therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to partition of schedule property.

Per contra learned counsel for defendants 1 and 2 would submit that plaint schedule property is self acquired property of first defendant by virtue of registered gift deed dated 2.3.1974 executed by Ademma and therefore, it is not liable for partition.

17.In view of rival submissions of both counsels, pleadings and evidence of both parties shall be examined carefully. As seen from the pleadings nowhere plaintiffs would contend that plaint schedule property is joint family property or plaint schedule property was gifted by ademma to first defendant and her children.

18.On the other hand, they admitted absolute ownership of first defendant over plaint schedule property in their pleadings itself. It is beneficial to reproduce relevant portion of pleadings of plaintiffs hereunder:

“The first defendant got the suit schedule property from her parents on 2.3.1974. Since that time she is enjoying the schedule property with absolute rights.:”

18.Thus, plaintiffs admitted absolute ownership of first defendant over schedule property. But in the course of trial, they have taken new defence contenting that plaint schedule property belongs to plaintiffs and defendants. It is useful to reproduce relevant portion of evidence in the chief examination affidavit of

PW1 hereunder:

“The 1st defendant got the plaint schedule property from her parents on 2.3.1974 along with absolute rights to her and to her sons and daughters.”

19.Similarly, PW2 who is 5th defendant also stated in the same lines. It is beneficial to reproduce relevant portion of evidence of PW2 hereunder:

“All the defendants and plaintiffs are having right in the suit schedule property and also having equal shares in the plaint schedule property.:”

20.Thus plaintiffs have taken new case in the course of trial without laying foundation in the plealdings.

Citation

21.In view of settled law, the plaintiffs cannot claim that plaint schedule property is their joint property. Hence, they cannot claim partition.

22.For instance if plaintiffs are allowed to contend plaint schedule property is joint property, in the absence of foundation in the pleadings, now the question is whether they are entitled to claim the same.

23.Though PW1 testified in her chief examination that plaint schedule property belongs to first defendant, her sons and daughters, in her cross examination she fairly admitted that plaint schedule property is gifted to first defendant by her mother under registered gift deed. This admission destruct the above claim of plaintiffs.

Evidence of defendants:

24.First defendant examined himself as DW1. She categorically stated in her evidence that she is absolute owner of plaint schedule property by virtue of gift deed executed by her mother. Plaintiffs cross examined her on admitted facts of acquisition of part of gift deed schedule property by the government, awarding compensation, etc.

25.Second defendant examined himself as DW1. He also testified in his chief examination affidavit about ownership of his mother (first defendant) by virtue of gift deed. Further, defendants 1 and 2 examined Sivamma as DW3. She also supports the case of defendants 1 and 2 by testifying that first defendant is owner of schedule property by virtue of gift deed and she has been enjoying the same.

26.Except putting denial suggestions nothing was elicited from the evidence of DWs 1 to 3 to believe that plaint schedule property belongs to first defendant and her children.

Gift deed/Ex.A1 :

In addition to the oral evidence, plaintiffs heavily relied upon recitals in the gift deed/Ex.A1. Learned counsel for plaintiffs has drawn the attention of this court to the recitals of gift deed/Ex.A1 and submitted that first defendant and his children all have equal rights over the schedule property and therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to partition of schedule property.

27.In view of arguments of learned counsel, recitals of the gift deed/Ex.A1 has to be examined carefully. Mother of first defendant by name Tulasi Ademma gifted 249 sq. yards to first defendant.

28.Coming to the arguments of learned counsel, he highlighted following recitals in the gift deed :

“సదరుఆస్థి�నినీవున్నూ��నీపుత్ర�, పుత్రి�క, పౌత్ర�, వం�శపారం�పరం�మున్నూ��దాన్నూ విక�యాధిస�పూరం!హక్కు$లతోమీయిష్టా* నుసారం�భుక.పరుచుక్కుని అనుభవి�చవంలస్థిన్నూది.”

29.Relying on above recitals, learned counsel strenuously contended that property was gifted to first defendant, her sons, daughters, grand children with absolute rights. Prior to the above recitals, it is recited in the gift deed that schedule property was gifted to first defendant and delivered possession. It is fruitful to reproduce relevant portion of recitals in gift deed herein:

“యీదిగువంషెడ్యూ�లుదాఖలాదాబాపెం�క్కుటియిలు> , రేక్కులయిలు>స.ల� అ�దలియావందిAశిష్ట*ములతోఈరోజున్నూనేనీక్కునేనుపుచిత్రముగాదఖలుపరిచిసదరు ఆస్థి.నిఈరోజన్నూనేనీక్కునేనుఅ�దలియావందిAశిష్ట*ములతోసాAధీన్నూపరంచటమైOన్నూది.”

30.It is clear from the above that mother of first defendant vested gift deed schedule to the first defendant. Once property is vested, it would not be divested by subsequent term/covenant in the document or subsequent document. It is well settled that when there are inconsistent terms in the documents, former term would prevail.

citation

31.In the present case also prior to the above emphasized recitals of learned counsel, Tulasi Ademma conferred property that he daughter(first defendant) by way of gift deed. So, subsequent above inconsistent term would not be divested or prevail over former term. Though there are inconsistency, executrix clarified the same at subsequent term by residing as follows:

“అట్లు>నీహక్కు$భక.ములనుగురి�చినిను�నీవారంసబాధ్య�స్తు. లున్నూ��, నేనుగానినా వారంసబాధ్య�స్తు. లుగానిఎన్నూ�టికిఏవిధ్యమైOన్నూత్రగాదాలుచేయగలవారంముకాము.”

32.On combined reading of all the above three sentences it reveals that Tulasi Ademma conveyed the gift deed schedule property to her daughter only, but not her children, her grand children, etc., as argued by learned counsel.

33.On thorough scrutinizing the terms and recitals of gift deed, this court has not found any substance in the arguments of learned counsel. Hence, arguments of learned counsel are not tenable.

34.It is not out of place to mention here that in the pleadings plaintiffs would contend that first defendant is suffering with insanity and taking advantage of her situation, second defendant trying to get the property registered in his name. But

PW1 fairly admitted in her cross examination that he was informed by 4th defendant that first defendant is suffering with insanity.

Further she admitted that she cannot say whether first defendant became insane or not as she has not seen the first defendant personally. It is matter on record that first defendant examined himself as DW1 in chief in open court.

35.For the purpose of recording cross examination, advocate commissioner was appointed. As seen from cross examination, DW1 (first defendant) has given rational answers.

Either this court or advocate commissioner did not found that DW1 (first defendant) is suffering with insanity. This court has not found that first defendant is suffering with insanity. Therefore, the contentions of learned counsel are not tenable.

36.Except the above oral and documentary evidence plaintiffs have not placed any other material to show that plaint schedule property belongs to their joint family. However, it is also stated above as per gift deed/Ex.A1 first defendant alone is done and property vested to her .

37.As plaint schedule property is self acquired property of first defendant plaintiffs or other defendants cannot claim partition of the same during her life time.

38.In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, and aforesaid discussion, it he held that plaint schedule property is not joint family property of plaintiffs and defendants and suit schedule property is not liable for partition. Accordingly, issues 2, 4, and 5 are answered.

ISSUE No.6 :

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profit as prayed for ?

39.In view of my findings at issue nos.2,4 and 5, they are not entitled to claim partition. Since plaintiffs are not entitled for partition, they are not entitled to mesne profits. So, they cannot claim mesne profits. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

ISSUE No.7 :

40. In view of relationship between the parties no costs are awarded. In the result, suit is dismissed.

Dictated to the Grade-I Stenographer, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 9th day of December, 2024.

Sd/-Sri Y. Y.GOPALA KRISHNA

I Additional Civil Judge( Sr. Division), Guntur. FAC Prl. Civil Judge, (Sr Division), Guntur.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For plaintiff:

P.W.1 : Y. Naga Lakshmi P.W.2 : Y. Rama Krishna

For defendants:

D.W.1: Y. Swarajyamma

D.W.2: Y. Appa Rao

D.W.3 : Eemani Sivamma

Documents marked:

For plaintiff :

Ex.A1: Certified copy of registered gift deed dated 2.3.1974,

Doc.No.926/1974.

For Defendants:

-Nil-

Sd/-Sri Y. Y.GOPALA KRISHNA

I Addl. C.J(Sr.D), Guntur. FAC Prl. Civil Judge, (Sr Division), Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

Present : SRI Y.GOPALA KRISHNA,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur. FAC Prl. Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Guntur.

Monday, the 9th day of December, 2024

O.S.No.478/2017

Between:- 1.YangalasettyTirupathaiah,S/o Narasaiah, 51 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Ramanamakshetram, 2nd line, D.No.24-8- 590, Guntur, Guntur District. (Died).

2.Yangalasetty Naga Lakshmi, W/o Late Yangalasetty Tirupathaiah, Hindu, House wife, aged about 33 years, R/o Door No.25-6-6,4th Line, R-Agraharam, Guntur.

3.Yangalasetty Sai Teja, S/o Late Yangalasetty Tirupathaiah, Hindu, aged about 19 years, student, r/o Door No.25- 6-6, 4th line, R-Agraharam, Guntur. . . . Plaintiffs.

And

1.Yangalasetty Swarajyamma, W/o Narasaiah, 83 years, Hindu, House wife, C/o Yangalasetty Appa Rao, R/o Ramanamakshetram, 2nd line, D.No.24-8-590, Guntur, Guntur District.

2. Yangalasetty Appa Rao, S/o Narasaiah, 53 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Ramanamakshetram, 2nd Line, D.No.24-8-590, Guntur, Guntur District.

3.Angajala Krishna Vandana, w/o Sankara Rao, 49 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o 7th line, Syamala Nagar, Guntur.

4. Gudiseva Suguna, W/o Saibaba, 45 years, Hindu, House wife, R/o Benz Circle, Vijayawada, Krishna District. . . . Defendants. -o0o- This suit is filed for partition of plaint schedule property into six equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs Plaint Presented on : 10-10-2017 Plaint numbered on : 10-10-2017 Cause of action for the suit arose on dated 02-03-1974 when the 1st defendant acquired schedule property from her parents and since then she is enjoying the schedule property with absolute rights and when the suit schedule property is situated near Darga on N.H-5 Road in Guntur City. Presently towards rents the 1st defendant is getting on her name Rs.13,000/- per month and in the expansion of width of road, 45 square yards of the building out of 249 square yards, the government acquired and when the Government gave Rs.38,00,000/- worth bonds were given in the name of the 1st defendant, and immediately those bonds were taken away from the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant and sold away all bonds in private transaction and enjoyed the same by the 2nd defendant only and even though the 1st defendant mentally is not sane condition and when the 2nd defendant managed all government people and took bonds issued in the name of the 1st defendant and when the 1st defendant told one version in a sitting immediately she forgotten and told another version as she is saying in mad manner without any proper stand and when the 2nd defendants collecting rents on behalf of the 1st defendant and enjoying rents for his own purpose and when the 1st defendant did not know anything about the amount of rents and the compensation that the 2nd defendant is collecting and misusing for his own purpose, and when the 2nd defendant proclaiming to his kith and kin that he will get registration of the plaint schedule property in his favour and that when the 2nd defendant one week back went to the Sub-Registrar office along with the 1st defendant and tried to get registration in his name and that when the Sub-Registrar refused the register the same as her mental condition is bad, and that when the 2nd defendant returned back and trying to create some fictitious documents such as Will in his favour, hence this suit is for partition in five shares of the plaint property and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs and at Guntur, where the plaint schedule property is situated within the limits fo the Hon’ble Court and as the 1st plaintiff left 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs as Lrs and are residing within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court, and where the plaint schedule property is situated are all within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court, Guntur.

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION:-

This being the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into five equal shares, the market value of the plaint schedule property of 204 square yards is Rs.25,000/- per square yard, as per the market value certificate, issued by S.R.O., Guntur dated 19-09-2017, the total value: Rs.25,000/- x 204 square yards…...Rs.51,00,000/- for 1/5th of the value being…….Rs.10,20,000/- 3/4th of the same being……..Rs.7,65,000/- On which a Court fee of Rs.10,126/- is paid under Sec.34(1) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act, 1956.

Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is same as above.

This suit came before me on 3.12.2024 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri S. Saibaba, Advocate for plaintiff, Sri D. Uma Maheswara Rao, Advocate for defendants 1 and 2; and defendants 3 to 5 having remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day,this Court doth order and decree as follows :

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed;

2. That there is no order as to costs.

Plaintiffs costs at Rs.15,428/-. Defendants costs at Rs.--Nil--

Plaint schedule is herewith attached.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court this the 09th day of December, 2024.

Sd/-Sri Y. Y.GOPALA KRISHNA

I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Guntur.

FAC. Prl.Civil Judge (Sr. Division),Guntur.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiffs For Defendants Rs. Ps.

1. Stamp on Vakalath 2-00

2. Court Fee 10,126-00

3. Process 200-00(Cm and Fc not filed)

4. Advocate Fee(As claimed) 5,000-00

5. Typing Charges50-00

6. Writing charges50-00

Total: 15,428-00 ---NIL--

Sd/-Sri Y. Y.GOPALA KRISHNA

I A.C.J(Sr.D), Gnt., FAC.PCJ (Sr.D), Gnt.

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION)

AT GUNTUR.

Present: Sri Y. Gopala Krishna, I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Guntur.

Monday this the 20th day of April, 2026

O.S. No. 9 of 2020

Between:-

Thimmisetty Venkat Rao, S/o Raghupathi Rao, Hindu, aged about 63 years, Occ: Business, R/o Door No.5-60-101/1, 4th Lane, Ashok Nagar, Guntur City, Guntur. . . . Plaintiff.

And

Rayapati Abhinanda, S/o Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o Kambhampadu Village & Post, Pedakurapadu Mandal, Guntur Distric. . . . Defendant. -o0o-

This suit came before me on 15.4.2026 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M.V. Subba Rao, Advocate for plaintiff, Sri P. Pamulaiah, Advocate for defendant, and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for the recovery of money on foot of a promissory note.

2. The main case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that;

i) On 21.03.2017, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,75,000/- from the plaintiff for agricultural purposes and executed a promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a. Subsequently, despite repeated demands, the defendant did not choose to repay the same. Finally, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 06.12.2019 calling upon the defendant to repay the debt. But the defendant intentionally refused to receive the 2 same. Hence, the present suit is filed for the recovery of money.

3. On the other hand, the defendant resisted the claim of plaintiff by filing a written statement. He specifically denied the borrowing amount and execution of the promissory note. The main case of defendant, in brief, is that:

i)He is a farmer, and the plaintiff is the Chillies Trading Commission. The plaintiff is also maintaining V.G.T. Cold Storage (P) Ltd., in Guntur. He kept 650 chilli bags at different dates at various cold storage, such as Sindhuri Cold Storage (P) Ltd., VGT (P) Ltd., and Jyothi Swarupa Cold Division, Guntur. They were noted by the plaintiff and his office in the pocket books and issued to the defendant. The tractor drivers, who unloaded chilli bags at various cold storages, had witnessed. It was also witnessed by the son of defendant. Original acknowledgments were taken away by the plaintiff from him. The plaintiff obtained a promissory note as security after paying the promissory note amount to the defendant. The amount noted in the promissory note was taken by the defendant from the plaintiff for agricultural purposes in the year 2017.

ii)The plaintiff sold 650 bags of chillies without knowledge of the defendant by submitting acknowledgment receipts, and it is worth of Rs.40,00,000/-. But the plaintiff did not return the promissory note to the defendant.

iii)After selling chilli bags of defendant, the plaintiff received amount, but he did not settle the defendant's account. In fact, the plaintiff has to pay balance amount after deducting the amount mentioned in the promissory note. Thus, the plaintiff misappropriated acknowledgment receipts given by the defendant by selling the stock and not settling the account of defendant after deducting the amount mentioned in the promissory note. Therefore, the defendant need not pay any amount. Hence, he urged the court to dismiss the suit.

4. After hearing both sides and based on the above pleadings, this court framed the following issues:

1.Whether the promissory note dated 21.3.2017, is true, valid and binding ?

2.Whether plaintiff is entitled for suit amount, as prayed for ?

3

3.To what relief ?

5.At the trial, the plaintiff examined PWs 1 to 4 while relying on

Exs. A1 to A3. On the other hand, the defendant examined DW.1 and exhibited Exs.B1 to B7.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

7. Perused the record.

ISSUE No.1:

1. Whether the promissory note dated 21.3.2017, is true, valid and binding ?

8. It is the case of plaintiff that on 21.03.2017, the defendant borrowed Rs.15,75,000/- for agricultural expenses and executed a promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a. On the other hand, the defendant denied the same, contending that he supplied chilli bags load to the plaintiff, who is a chilli commission agent, and stocked the chilli in 3 cold storages on the instructions of plaintiff and gave acknowledgment receipts to the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained a promissory note from the defendant as security for the amount given to him, and subsequently, the plaintiff sold the stock without the consent and knowledge of defendant, and did not repay the balance amount after borrowing the amount given to the defendant, further, the defendant contended.

9. In view of the rival contentions of both parties and the above issues, it is obvious to say that undoubtedly, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to clinchingly establish execution of the promissory note and the lending amount of Rs.15,75,000/- thereunder. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1. He reiterated the averments of plaint in his chief examination. Defendant cross-examined him. In the cross- examination, PW1 testified that he does mirchi commission business.

Further, he testified that he is not maintaining VGT Cold storage, but his 4 relative by name Subba Rao is maintaining said cold storage, and that usually, farmers used to keep their stock in the cold storage. The rest of the cross-examination of PW1 is suggestions.

10. Besides the above, the plaintiff examined Jetti Rama Rao, P.

Srinivasa Rao, M. Sankara Rao as Pws 2 to 4. They claimed to be attestors 1 and 2 and scribe of promissory note/Ex.A1, respectively. They stated in their respective chief examination affidavits that the defendant borrowed Rs.15,75,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in his favour. The defendant cross-examined them.

11. In the cross-examination, PW2 testified that the plaintiff is doing chilli commission business, and that he has known the defendant for past more than 10 years. He further testified that at the time of the promissory note transaction, he, along with P. Srinivasa Rao and M.

Sankara Rao (Pws 3 and 4), the plaintiff and defendant were present at the shop of plaintiff. He further testified that the defendant borrowed

Rs.15,75,000/- in denomination of Rs.500 notes, such as thirty-one Rs 500/- rupee note bundles and fifty Rs.500/- notes. He further testified that the promissory note was filled with one pen, but he signed the promissory note with his pen.

12. PW3 stated in his cross-examination that the promissory note was executed at the office of plaintiff in the presence of himself, along with the plaintiff and defendant, J. Rama Rao (PW2) and Medisetti Sankara

Rao (PW4). He further testified that he did not ask the plaintiff how he secured Rs 15,75,000/-. Further, he testified that the denomination of said amount is Rs.500/- notes, such as thirty-one bundles of Rs.500/- notes, two bundles of Rs.100/- notes, and one bundle of Rs.50/- notes.

13. In the cross-examination, PW4 testified that on 21.3.2017, the plaintiff lent Rs.15,75,000/- to the defendant in denomination of Rs.500/- notes, and the defendant, in turn, executed a promissory note. But the 5 plaintiff did not inform him that he withdrew said amount from the bank or how he secured said Rs.15,75,000/-, further PW4 testified.

14. In addition to the above, the defendant put his defence by way of suggestions. Of course, Pws 1 to 4 denied the same.

15.The evidence of Pws 1 to 4 evinces minute things under the suit promissory note transaction, such as date and place of execution of promissory note, quantum of lending amount, particulars of persons in whose presence promissory note was executed, etc.

16. In order to make the court disbelieve the plaintiff’s case, the learned counsel for defendant argued on couple of aspects. It is the right time to discuss the same while appreciating the evidence of Pws 1 to 4.

17. Learned counsel for defendant has drawn the attention of this court to the evidence of Pws 2 to 4 and submitted that there is a glaring discrepancy regarding the denomination of lending amount, and it is sufficient to hold that the lending amount is highly doubtful.

18. In view of the arguments of learned counsel, the evidence of

Pws 2 to 4 has to be examined carefully. Pws 2 and 4 deposed the denomination of lending amount is Rs.500/- rupee notes. But PW3 deposed that the denomination of the lending amount is thirty-one bundles of Rs.500/- notes, two bundles of Rs.100/- notes, and one bundle of

Rs.50/- notes. Thus, there is an apparent inconsistency between the evidence of PW3 on one side and Pws 2 and 3 on the other side.

19. As per the version of the plaintiff, the promissory note was executed on 21.03.2017. Whereas Pws 2 to 4 were cross-examined on 09.09.2025, 24.10.2025 and 4.12.2025, respectively. Thus, they were cross-examined 8 years after the execution of promissory note. Normal discrepancies in the evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time. It must also be borne in mind that a parrotlike deposition after a long lapse of time smacks 6 of tutoring, and some differences in fact advance the credibility of the witnesses. Pws 2 to 4 are not expected to remember every tiny detail of the transaction, as they had given evidence eight years after the transaction under promissory note/Ex.A1. The Court must cull out the nuggets of the truth from the evidence unless there is a reason to believe that the discrepancies or inconsistencies are so glaring as utterly to destroy the confidence in the witnesses.

20. Except for the above discrepancy regarding denomination, there are no other discrepancy or inconsistency among the evidence of

Pws 2 to 4. Further, the defendant did not attribute any animosity or hostility against Pws 2 to 4. Therefore, there is no need for them to give false evidence against the defendant. On thorough scrutiny of the evidence of Pws 2 to 4, this court has not found any other material discrepancy to doubt the execution of promissory note. In view of the circumstances, relying on the discrepancy regarding the denomination deposed by Pws 2 to 4 after a lapse of 8 years, the promissory note transaction cannot be disbelieved. Hence, the contentions of learned counsel are not tenable.

21. Further, learned counsel for defendant would submit that the plaintiff obtained a promissory note as security for the small amount given to the defendant and taking advantage of the same, the present suit is filed. Thus, learned counsel would contend that the suit promissory note was given as security for the amount given to the defendant. But as seen from the pleadings, the defendant fairly admitted that he received the amount mentioned in the promissory note. It is fruitful to reproduce the relevant portion of pleadings of written statement hereunder:

“Accordingly, the plaintiff obtained suit promissory note as security after paying promissory note amount by the plaintiff to the defendant. “The amount noted in the promissory note took by defendant from the plaintiff for agricultural purpose in the year 2017.” 7

22. Except for the above, he never stated that he gave a blank promissory note as security for the amount lent. It is revealed from the above pleadings that the defendant admitted borrowing Rs.15,75,000/- mentioned in the promissory note/Ex.A1 from the plaintiff. So, the question of giving a promissory note as security for the small amount does not arise.

The above admissions are sufficed to hold that the defendant borrowed

Rs.15,75,000/- from the plaintiff. Hence, the contentions of learned counsel for defendant are not tenable.

23.It is relevant to note that the defendant cross-examined Pws 2 to 4 at length, but nothing favourable answers were elicited to doubt the execution of promissory note and the borrowing amount thereunder. The evidence of Pws 1 to 4 is consistent, inspires confidence and is trustworthy that the defendant borrowed Rs.15,75,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note. Thus, the plaintiff discharged his burden through the evidence of Pws 1 to 4.

24. It is significant to note that in the pleadings and evidence, the defendant executed a promissory note. Therefore, the presumption

U/Sec.118 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act1 is in favour of plaintiff. In

Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company Vs. Amin Chand

Payrelal2, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that,

Once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non-existence of consideration by raising a probable defence.

25.In Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao v. Thadikonda Ramulu

Firm & Ors.3, it was held that, "Under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court is obliged to presume, until the contrary is proved, 1For brevity, “the Act” 2 AIR 1999 SC 1008 32008 (8) SCALE 680 8 that the promissory note was made for consideration. It is also a settled position that the initial burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would lead the Court to believe the non-existence of the consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal. …"

26. The above authorities and Section 118(a) of the Negotiable

Instrument Act make very clear that, when execution of a promissory note is admitted, it is presumed that consideration was passed under the promissory note. Thus, presumption, i.e., passing of consideration under promissory note/Ex.A1, is in favour of the plaintiff. Now the onus shifts to the defendant.

27. It is the case of defendant that he supplied 650 bags of chillies to the plaintiff and stocked the same at three different cold storages on the instructions of plaintiff, and their original receipts worth about

Rs.40,00,000/- were given to him. The plaintiff sold the same by using original acknowledgment slips, without knowledge of the defendant, and subsequently, the plaintiff did not return the balance amount after deducting the amount lent to him, further, the defendant contended.

28.To substantiate the defence, the defendant examined himself as DW1. He reiterated the averments of written statement in his chief examination affidavit. Plaintiff cross-examined him. In the cross- examination, DW1 testified that he has Ac.2.00 cents of land in

Kambampadu; and that he used to do cultivation on taking lease of lands and raise cotton and mirch. He further testified that the plaintiff and his brother and another are the partners of VGT Cold Storage (P) Ltd., and one Reddy is the owner of Jyothi Swaroopa Cold Storage, and the said

Reddy he is a known person and a man of plaintiff. He further testified that without issuing any notice to him, his stock was sold, but the plaintiff did 9 not pay the balance amount after deducting the amount given to him. He further testified that there was a fire accident at VGT Cold Storage (P) Ltd., and some of his stock was burned in the fire accident. Thus, the defendant has made a claim, without filing any counter-claim.

29. whatever the above, except for self-testimony, the defendant did not adduce any other evidence. In the pleadings and evidence, the defendant categorically stated that tractor drivers unloaded chilli bags at various cold storages on the instructions of the plaintiff. But the defendant did not choose to examine them to establish that he got stocked chilli bags at various cold storages on the instructions of plaintiff.

30. Further, the defendant pleaded and deposed in the chief examination affidavit that plaintiff acknowledged receiving chilli bags in a notebook. It is worthwhile to reproduce the relevant portion of the pleadings of written statement hereunder:

“It was also noted in the pocket note books by the plaintiff and his office and issued to the defendant.”

31. It is revealed from the above that the plaintiff and his office acknowledged in the pocket notebook of defendant that they received chilli bags from the defendant. So, the said pocket notebook is available with the defendant. But he did not file the same to substantiate his plea, though it is pivotal to his case. Thereby, the defendant suppressed a material document, such as a pocket notebook. Therefore, adverse inference shall be drawn against his case.

32. Besides the above oral evidence, the defendant relied upon the documentary evidence, such as Exs.B1 to B7. They are photostat copies of acknowledgments issued by cold storages, they are marked subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. Though they are marked subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility, the plaintiff did not take any steps to clear the objections by summoning the concerned cold storage officials, confirming that they issued their originals. However, simply 10 establishing acknowledgments/Exs.B1 to B7 issued by the concerned cold storages is not sufficient to prove that stock covered thereunder was sold by the plaintiff. Regardless of it, the defendant failed to prove that he supplied stock covered under Exs.B1 to B7 to the plaintiff or stocked at the respective cold storages.

33. Except for the above, the defendant did not place any other material to substantiate his defence. On the other hand, the plaintiff proved the execution of promissory note and the lending amount thereunder.

34. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is held that the suit promissory note dated 21.3.2017 is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

ISSUE No.2

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for suit amount, as prayed for ?

35.In view of my findings on issue no.1, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

ISSUE No.3:

3.To what relief ?

36.In the result, suit is decree for the sum of Rs.23,87,700/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs eighty seven thousand and seven hundred only) in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant with costs and interest at 9% p.a. from the date of suit to till the date of decree, and future interest at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization, on principal amount of

Rs.15,75,000/-.

Dictated to the Grade-I Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this 20th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Y.Gopala Krishna

I Additional Civil Judge( Sr. Division), Guntur.

11

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined: For plaintiff:

PW1: Thimmisetty Venkat Rao PW2: Jetti Rama Rao PW3: P. Srinivasa Rao PW4: Mudisetty Sankara Rao

For defendant:

DW1: Rayapati Abhinandana Documents marked: For plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Promissory note dated 21.3.2017 Ex.A2 : Office copy of registered notice, dt.6.12.2019 Ex.A3 : Refused notice for Doct.No.2, dt.14.12.2019

For Defendant:

Ex.B1: Copy of acknowledgment dated 15.2.2016 Ex.B2: Copy of acknowledgment dated 1.2.2017, for 28 bags Ex.B3: Copy of acknowledgment dated 12.2.2017 for 85 bags Ex.B4: Copy of acknowledgment dated 12.2.2017 for 15 bags Ex.B5: Copy of acknowledgment dated 12.2.2017 for 43 bags Ex.B6: Copy of acknowledgment, dated 23.2.2017 for 70 bags Ex.B7: Copy of acknowledgment dated 28.2.2017 for 14 bags.

Sd/- Y.Gopala Krishna

I Addl. C.J(Sr.D), Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

Present : SRI Y.GOPALA KRISHNA,

I Addl. Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Guntur.

FAC Principal Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Guntur.

Thursday, the 05th day of December, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.40/2024

Between:

Guntupalli Babu Rao, S/o.Late Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 68 years, Cultivation, R/o.Gottipadu Village, Prattipadu Mandal, Guntur District.

..Plaintiff.

AND 1.Guntupalli Siva Kumari, W/o.Late Babu Rao (Sarpanch), Hindu, aged about 64 years, Housewife, R/o.Peda Gottipadu Village and Post, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District.

2.Medikonduri Surya Kumari, W/o.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 46 years, Housewife, R/o.Flat No.404, Venkateswara Grand Apartments, Beside Kommineni Gardens, Ramannapet, Guntur City, Guntur District.

3. Popuri Kavith, W/o.Atchutaramaiah @ Rambabu, Hindu, aged about 44 years, Housewife, R/o.Flat No.101, S.R.Shine Apartments, “0” Lane, Tarakarama Nagar, JKC College Road, Guntur City, Guntur District.

4. Kelampalli Sowjenya, W/o.Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Housewife, R/o.Flat No.502, Ummineni Gardens Apartments, Near Current Office, Saibaba Nagar, Opp. Union Bank of India, Gujjanagundla, Guntur City, Guntur District.

..Defendants.

This suit coming on 02.12.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.A.Anjaneya Prasad, Advocate for plaintiff and of defendants remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed for the recovery of money on the foot of seven (7) promissory notes.

2

2. The main case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that:

i)The 1st defendant is the wife and defendants 2 to 4 are children of late Guntupalli Babu Rao. The said Guntupalli Babu Rao died and leaving behind defendants as his legal heirs.

ii)The said Guntupalli Babu Rao borrowed an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/-,Rs.4,00,000/-,Rs.3,50,000/-,Rs.1,50,000/-,

Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 07.04.2021, 11.05.2021, 29.09.2021, 20.12.2021, 26.08.2022 and 24.03.2023, respectively, and executed promissory notes on respective dates. Babu

Rao made part payment of Rs.2,00,000/- under promissory note dated 07.04.2021 and endorsed the same on the back side of promissory note.

ii)Babu Rao also borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from Bandla

Siva Rama Krishna on 20.12.2021 for his family and agriculture expenses and executed promissory note in his favour. Subsequently, the said Siva

Rama Krishna transferred the said promissory note to the plaintiff for collection and made transfer endorsement on the back side of promissory note on 08.11.2023.

iii)Subsequently, despite repeated demands personally as well as mediators, Guntupalli Babu Rao postponed the same on one pretext or other. While so, Guntupalli Babu Rao died. After his demise, the plaintiff demanded defendants as his legal heirs personally and through mediators to discharge the debt of Guntupalli Babu Rao, but they postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Eventually, on 18.12.2023, plaintiff got issued legal notice demanding defendants to 3 pay due amounts. But they did not repay the same. Hence, he filed the present suit for recovery of money.

3.After service of summons, the defendants 1, 3 and 4 got appeared through their counsel Sri K.V. Raghunath. But they failed to file written statement within stipulated period. As such, my learned predecessor made them to set exparte.

4.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for ?”

5.During course of trial, the plaintiff examined PWs.1 to 4, while relying on Exs.A1 to A12. On the other hand, defendants have not adduced either oral or documentary evidence.

6.Heard arguments.

7.Perused record. Point: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for ?”

8. It is the case of plaintiff that the y borrowed an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.3,50,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/-,

Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- on 07.04.2021, 11.05.2021, 29.09.2021, 20.12.2021, 26.08.2022, 24.03.2023 and 20.12.2021, respectively, and executed promissory notes on respective dates.

9. In order to prove the promissory notes, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. He reiterated the averments of plaint in his chief-examination affidavit. Besides his evidence, he examined Makineni Venkateswara Rao as

P.W.2. He claims to be 1st attestor of promissory notes/Exs.A3, A4 and A6. He 4 testified in his chief-examination affidavit that Babu Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.3,50,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- on 11.05.2021, 29.09.2021 and 26.08.2022, respectively,and executed promissory notes on respective dates.

10.Further, the plaintiff examined B.Siva Rama Krishna Rao as P.W.3.

He claims to be 1st attestor of promissory notes/Exs.A1 and A5 and also executant of transfer endorsement. He testified in his chief-examination affidavit that Guntupalli Babu Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-,

Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- on 07.04.2021, 20.12.2021 and 24.03.2023, respectively, and executed promissory notes on respective dates. Further, he testified that the said Babu Rao borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from him on 20.12.2021 and executed promissory note with his own handwriting and subsequently, transferred the same to the plaintiff for collection and made transfer endorsement on the backside of promissory note.

11.Besides the above, the plaintiff also examined Kolla Venkateswara

Rao as P.W.4. He claims to be 1st attestor on Exs.A7 and A8. He testified in his chief-examination affidavit, Babu Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- on 20.12.2021 and 24.03.2023, respectively, and executed promissory notes on respective dates.

12.It is to be mentioned here that the defendants failed to cross- examine P.Ws.1 to 4, thereby their evidence is unchallenged.

13.In addition to the above oral evidence, the plaintiff relied upon

Exs.A1 to A12. Ex.A1 is promissory note dated 07.04.2021, Ex.A2 is part payment endorsement dated 08.04.2021 on the back side of promissory 5 note/Ex.A1, Ex.A3 is promissory note dated 11.05.2021, Ex.A4 is promissory note dated 29.09.2021, Ex.A5 is promissory note dated 20.12.2021, Ex.A6 is promissory note dated 26.08.2021, Ex.A7 is promissory note dated 24.03.2023, Ex.A8 is promissory note dated 20.12.2021, Ex.A9 is transfer endorsement dated 08.11.2023 on the back side of promissory note/Ex.A8,

Ex.A10 is office copy of legal notice dated 21.12.2023, Ex.A11 is returned RP cover of 2nd defendant and Ex.A12 is returned RP cover of 4th defendant.

14. Oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and documentary evidence (Exs.A1 to

A12) corroborate each other regarding the lending amount and execution of promissory notes. On thorough scrutiny of the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, this court has not found any circumstance to disbelieve their version. Thereby, the plaintiff proved execution of promissory notes and lending amounts thereunder.

Hence, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

15.In the result, suit is decreed for Rs.28,23,698/- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs twenty three thousand six hundred and ninety eight only) against the estate of deceased Guntupalli Babu Rao, lying in the hands of defendants with costs with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till realization on principal amount of Rs.19,00,000/- (Rs.21,00,000 – Rs.2,00,000 (part payment).

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court this the 5th day of December, 2024.

Sri Y.Gopala Krishna, I Additional Civil Judge(Sr.D),Guntur. FAC Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. D), Guntur.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1 : Guntupalli Babu Rao P.W.2 : Makineni Venkateswara Rao P.W.3 : Bandla Siva Rama Krishna P.W.4 : Kolla Venkateswara Rao

For Defendants: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is promissory note dated 07.04.2021.

Ex.A2 is part payment endorsement dated 08.04.2021 on the back side of promissory note/Ex.A1.

Ex.A3 is promissory note dated 11.05.2021.

Ex.A4 is promissory note dated 29.09.2021.

Ex.A5 is promissory note dated 20.12.2021.

Ex.A6 is promissory note dated 26.08.2021.

Ex.A7 is promissory note dated 24.03.2023.

Ex.A8 is promissory note dated 20.12.2021.

Ex.A9 is transfer endorsement dated 08.11.2023 on the back side of promissory note/Ex.A8.

Ex.A10 is office copy of legal notice dated 21.12.2023.

Ex.A11 is returned RP cover of 2nd defendant.

Ex.A12 is returned RP cover of 4th defendant.

For Defendants: -NIL- Sri Y.Gopala Krishna, I Additional Civil Judge(Sr.D),Guntur. FAC Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. D), Guntur.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

Present : SRI Y.GOPALA KRISHNA,

I Addl. Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Guntur.

FAC Principal Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Guntur.

Thursday, the 05th day of December, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.40/2024

Between:

Guntupalli Babu Rao, S/o.Late Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 68 years, Cultivation, R/o.Gottipadu Village, Prattipadu Mandal, Guntur District.

..Plaintiff.

AND 1.Guntupalli Siva Kumari, W/o.Late Babu Rao (Sarpanch), Hindu, aged about 64 years, Housewife, R/o.Peda Gottipadu Village and Post, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District.

2.Medikonduri Surya Kumari, W/o.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 46 years, Housewife, R/o.Flat No.404, Venkateswara Grand Apartments, Beside Kommineni Gardens, Ramannapet, Guntur City, Guntur District.

3. Popuri Kavith, W/o.Atchutaramaiah @ Rambabu, Hindu, aged about 44 years, Housewife, R/o.Flat No.101, S.R.Shine Apartments, “0” Lane, Tarakarama Nagar, JKC College Road, Guntur City, Guntur District.

4. Kelampalli Sowjenya, W/o.Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Housewife, R/o.Flat No.502, Ummineni Gardens Apartments, Near Current Office, Saibaba Nagar, Opp. Union Bank of India, Gujjanagundla, Guntur City, Guntur District.

..Defendants.

This suit is filed for the recovery of money on the foot of seven (7) promissory notes. Plaint Presented on : 25-01-2024 Plaint numbered on : 18-03-2024

Cause of action for the suit arose on 07-04-2021 when late Guntupalli Babu Rao S/o.Suryanarayana borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed “A” marked promissory note, when he borrowed other amounts on varies dates and executed separate pronotes on the respective dates to the said amounts and when in total said late Guntupalli Babu Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff under A to F marked pronotes, when the said late Babu Rao also borrowed another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from Bandla Siva Rama Krishna on 20.12.2021 and executed pronote in his 8 favour, when the said late Babu Rao promising to pay the amounts covered under the above pronote with interest at 24% per annum and subsequently when the plaintiff and Bandla Siva Rama Krishna demanded Babu Rao during his life time for repayment of the amount due to them under the said pronotes and after the death of the said Babu Rao, the defendants who are the wife and children of the said late Babu Rao became the owners of the estate of the said Babu Rao, when after the death of the said Babu Rao, plaintiff and Siva Rama Krishna demanded the defendants for discharge of the amount due to them under the above said prontoes by late Babu Rao and when the defendants failed to discharged the debt due under the above said pronotes, when Bandla Sivarama Krishna on 08.11.2023 transferred his pronote in the name of the plaintiff for collection, thus plaintiff became the holder of the prontoe of the said Sivarama Krishna when plaintiff on 21.12.2023 got issued notice tot he defendants, defendants 1 and 3 received the same and defendants 2 and 4 returned the same with false endorsements and the defendant failed to pay the amount and at Gottipadu Village, Prattipadu Mandal, Guntur District were prontoes executed, within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION:-

1.This being a suit for recovery of the amount due under “A” marked pronote.

a.Amount borrowed under pronote dated 07.04.2021Rs.4,00,000-00

Interest thereon at 24% p.a from 07.04.2021 to 24.01.2024Rs.2,68,533-00 -------------------- TotalRs.6,68,533-00 --------------------- Part payment made under “A” marked pronote on 08.04.2021 is Rs.2,00,000-00 interest thereon at 24% p.a from 08.04.2021 to 24.01.2024Rs.1,34,133-00 ----------------- TotalRs.3,34,133-00 ----------------- Balance due under A marked pronote is Rs.3,34,400-00 On which a court fee of Rs.5,926/- is payable under section 20 of A.P.C.F & S.V Act, 1956.

2. This being a suit for recovery of the amount due under “B” marked pronote. Amount borrowed under pronote dated 11-05-2021Rs.4,00,000-00 Interest thereon at 24% p.a. from 11.05.2021 to 24.01.2024Rs.2,59,466-00 ------------------ TotalRs.6,59,466-00 ------------------ 9

On which a court fee of Rs.9,126/- is payable under Section 20 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act, 1956.

3) This being a suit for recovery of the amount due under “C” marked pronote.

Amount borrowed under pronote dated 29.09.2021Rs.3,50,000-00 Interest thereon at 24% p.a., from 26.09.2021 to 24.01.2024Rs.1,94,833-00 ----------------- TotalRs.5,44,833-00 ----------------- on which a court fee of Rs.7,926/- is payable under Section 20 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act, 1956.

4)This being a suit for recovery of the amount due under “D” marked pronote.

Amount borrowed under pronote dated 29.12.2021Rs.1,50,000-00 Interest thereon at 24% p.a., from 26.09.2021 to 24.01.2024Rs. 75,400-00 ----------------- TotalRs.2,25,400-00 -----------------

On which Court Fee of Rs.4,926/- is paid under Section 20 of APCF and SV Act.

5)This being a suit for recovery of the amount due under the “E” marked pronote

Amount borrowed under prontoe dated 26.08.2022 Rs.5,00,000-00 Interest thereon at 24% per annum from 26.08.2022 to 24.01.2024. Rs.1,69,333-00 ---------------------- Total Rs.6,69,333-00 --------------------- On which a court fee of Rs.9,126/- is payable under Section 20 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act, 1956.

6)This being a suit for recovery fo the amount due under the “F” marked pronote.

Amount borrowed under pronote dated 24.03.2023Rs.2,00,000-00 interest thereon at 24% per annum from 24.03.2023 to 24.01-2024.Rs. 40,000-00 -------------------- TotalRs.2,40,000-00 --------------------- On which a court fee of Rs.4,826/- is payable under Section 20 of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act, 1956 10

7)This being a suit for recovery of the amount due under the “G” marked pronote.

Amount borrowed under prontoe dated 20.12.2021Rs.1,00,000-00 Interest thereon at 24% per annum from 20.12.2021 to 24.01.2024Rs. 50,266-00 ------------------ TotalRs.1,50,266-00 ------------------ On which Court Fee of Rs.4,026/- is paid under Section 20 of APCF and SV Act.

Total amount due under A to G marked pronotes are is Rs.3,34,400+Rs.6,59,466+Rs.5,44,833+Rs.2,25,400+Rs.6,69,333+ Rs.2,40,000+Rs.1,50,266=28,23,698-00

Total value for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.28,23,698/-.

Total Court fee paid Rs.45,882/-.

This suit coming on 02.12.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.A.Anjaneya Prasad, Advocate for plaintiff and of defendants remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows :

1.That the suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.28,23,698/- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs twenty three thousand six hundred and ninety eight only) against the estate of deceased Guntupalli Babu Rao, lying in the hands of defendants with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till realization on principal amount of Rs.19,00,000/- (Rs.21,00,000 – Rs.2,00,000 (part payment).

2.That the defendants do pay a sum of Rs.89,589/- to the plaintiff towards costs of the suit and do bear their own costs of Rs.Nil (cm & fc not filed by the defendants).

Given under my hand and the seal of the court this the 5th day of December, 2024. Sri Y.Gopala Krishna, I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur. FAC. Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur.

11

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendants

Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps.

1. Stamp on Vakalath 2-00

2. Court Fee 45,882-00 Cm & fc not filed

3. Process 400-00

4. Advocate Fee43,205-00

5. Typing Charges50-00

6. Writing charges 50-00

Total: 89,589-00 -NIL-

Sri Y.Gopala Krishna, I A.C.J (Sr.D), Gnt., FAC.P.C.J (Sr.D),Gnt.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR

DIVISION), GUNTUR

Present : SRI Y.GOPALA KRISHNA,

I Addl. Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Guntur.

FAC Principal Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Guntur.

Saturday, the 30th day of November, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.106/2022

Between: Ganduri Venkata Rao, S/o Venkataiah, Hindu, aged about 40 years, R/o D.No.19-9-115, Gandhi Nagar, Etukuru road, Guntur.

..Plaintiff.

AND

1. Jeelaga Kondamma, W/o Late Lalaiah, aged 49 years

2. S. Geetha, D/o Late Lalaiah, Aged 30 years

3. Aruna, D/o Late lalaiah, aged 27 years

4. Jeelaga Syamala, D/o Late Lalaiah, aged 25 years All are residents of near NTYR Statue Siripuram Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District.

..Defendants.

This suit coming on 28.11.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Kishore Babu and Sri K.A. Wilson, Advocates for plaintiff and of defendants remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed for the recovery of amount on the foot of promissory note.

2. The main case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that:

i)on 8.8.2011 Jeelaga Lalaiah, who is husband of first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 4, borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff for his family expenses and executed 2 promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a.

ii) Subsequently despite oral demands, Jeelaga Lalaiah failed to repay the same. Subsequently plaintiff came to know that said

Jeelaga Lalaiah died intestate leaving behind the defendants 1 to 4 as his legal heirs. As defendants 1 to 4 are legal heirs, plaintiff made several demands to defendants 1 to 4 to discharge the debt.

But they did not choose to pay the same and postponing the same on one pretext or other. Finally, on 16.4.2013, plaintiff got issued legal notice to defendants, but the defendants got the legal notices returned with an endorsement “door locked”, and the fourth defendant received the legal notice. On receipt of legal notice, fourth defendant got issued a reply notice dated 23.4.2013.

Subsequently, plaintiff got issued rejoinder notice and the counsel for fourth defendant received the same and kept quite.

3.Even after service of summons, defendants 1 and 4 did not turn up before the court either personally or through Advocate. Inspite of substitute service, defendants 2 and 3 did not turn up before court.

Hence, they are set exparte.

4.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for ?” 3

5.During course of trial, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 while relying on Exs.A1 to A9. On the other hand, defendants has not adduced either oral or documentary evidence.

6.Heard arguments.

7.Perused record.

Point: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for ?”

8. It is the case of plaintiff on 8.8.2011 Jeelaga Lalaiah, who is husband of first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 4 borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff for his family expenses and executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a.

9. In order to substantiate the case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1. He reiterated the averments of plaint in hischief examination affidavit. The defendants failed to cross-examine PW1.

Thereby, his evidence became unchallenged.

10.Besides the above oral evidence, the plaintiff relied upon

Exs.A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is Promissory note dated 8.8.2011, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 16.4.2013, Ex.A3 is returned RP cover of D1,

Ex.A4 is returned RP cover of D2, Ex.A5 is returned RP cover of D3, Ex.A6 is postal acknowledgment of D4, Ex.A7 is reply notuice dated 23.4.2013,

Ex.A8 is rejoinder notice and Ex.A9 is letter dated 12.10.2013 given by 4 post master, Guntur Head Office regarding service of notice. Promissory notes/Ex.A1 discloses that Jeelaga Lalaiah borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 8.8.2011. The evidence of PW1 corroborates with documentary evidence.

11.It is matter on record that plaint was presented before the

Court on 10.06.2014,

12. On thorough scrutiny of the evidence of PW1, this court has not found any circumstances to disbelieve his version. Further, oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence (Exs.A1 to A9) corroborate each other regarding the lending amount. Hence, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered.

13.In the result, suit is decreed for Rs.2,35,000/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty five thousand only) against the estate of Jeelaga Lalaiah, lying in the hands of defendants with costs and with subsequent interest @ 6 % p.a., from the date of suit till realization on principal amount of

Rs.1,50,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in Open Court this the 30th day of November, 2024.

Sd/-Y.Gopala Krishna.

I Additional Civil Judge(Sr.D),Guntur. FAC Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. D), Guntur.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1 : G. Venkata Rao

For Defendant: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Promissory note dated 8.8.2011

Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice dated 16.4.2013

Ex.A3 : Returned RP cover of D1

Ex.A4 : Returned RP cover of D2

Ex.A5 : Returned RP cover of D3

Ex.A6 : Postal acknowledgment of D4

Ex.A7 : Reply notice dated 23.4.2013

Ex.A8 : Rejoinder notice

Ex.A9 : Letter dated 12.10.2013 given by post master, Guntur Head Office regarding service of notice.

For Defendant: -NIL-

Sd/-Y.Gopala Krishna.

I Additional Civil Judge(Sr.D),Guntur. FAC Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. D), Guntur.

6

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

Present : SRI Y.GOPALA KRISHNA,

I Addl. Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Guntur.

FAC Principal Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Guntur.

Saturday, the 30th day of November, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.106/2022

Between: Ganduri Venkata Rao, S/o Venkataiah, Hindu, aged about 40 years, R/o D.No.19-9-115, Gandhi Nagar, Etukuru road, Guntur.

..Plaintiff.

AND

1. Jeelaga Kondamma, W/o Late Lalaiah, aged 49 years,

2. S. Geetha, D/o Late Lalaiah, Aged 30 years,

3. Aruna, D/o Late lalaiah, aged 27 years,

4. Jeelaga Syamala, D/o Late Lalaiah, aged 25 years

All are residents of near NTYR Statue Siripuram Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District.

..Defendants.

This suit is filed for the recovery of amount on the foot of promissory note. Plaint Presented on : 10.06.2014 Plaint numbered on : 10.06.2014

Cause of action for the suit arose on 08.08.2011 when one Jeelaga Lalaiah son of Narasaiah who is the husband of first defendant and father of 2 to 4 defendants herein, borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and on the even date the said Jeelaga Lalaiah executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand and that subsequently the plaintiff made several demands personally and through mediators to repay the said amount due under the above refereed prontoe but the said Jeelaga Lalaiah did not choose to repay the same and postponing the same on one pretext or other with a view to avoid the same. Subsequently the plaintiff came to know that the said Jeelaga Lalaih died intestate leaving behind the defendants 1 to 4 herein as his legal heirs. Since all the defendants being the legal heirs of the 7 deceased jeelaga Lalaih shall be held liable to discharge the afore mentioned suit prontoe debt with up to date interest to the plaintiff and the plaintiff made several demands to discharge of the said debt due but all the defendants did not choose to pay the same and postponing the same either under one pretext or other and the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice dated 16.04.2013 to the defendants calling upon them to repay the aforementioned pronote debt with up to date interest within a week days from the date of receipt of the legal notice and the defendants 1 to 3 got the legal notices returned with an endorsement Door Locked vide returned leal notices dated 25.04.2013 and the 4th defendant received the legal notice on 22.04.2013 and thus all the defendants being the legal heirs of the deceased Jeelaga Lalaiah and they are hails from one family and they kept quite without discharging the suit promissory note debt. On receipt of the legal notice the 4th defendant therein got issued a reply notice dated 23.04.2013 through her counsel with all false allegations and subsequently the plaintiff got issued a rejoinder notice and the counsel for the 4th defendant received the same on 09.07.2013 and kept quite and that the plaintiff is residing at Etukuru Road, Guntur City and the promissory note executed in favour fo the plaintiff at Guntur City all are within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION:-

The principal amount borrowed under the suit promissory note on 08.08.2011Rs.1,50,000-00

Interest @ 24% per annum from 08.08.2011 to 08.06.2014 on Rs.1,50,000/-Rs. 85,000-00 ------------------ Rs.2,35,000-00 ------------------ On which a court fee of Rs.4,826/- ispaid under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act, 1956.

Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.2,35,000-00

This suit coming on 28.11.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Kishore Babu and Sri K.A. Wilson, Advocates for plaintiff and of defendants remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows :

1.That the suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty five thousand only) against 8 the estate of Jeelaga Lalaiah, lying in the hands of defendants with costs and with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of suit till realization on

principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/-;

2.That the defendants do pay a sum of Rs.12,341/- to the plaintiff towards costs of the suit and do bear their own costs of Rs.Nil (cm & fc not filed by the defendant).

Given under my hand and the seal of the court this the 30th day of November, 2024.

Sd/-Y.Gopala Krishna.

I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur. FAC. Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendants Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps. (Exparte)

1. Stamp on Vakalath 2-00

2. Court Fee 4,826-00

3. Process 38-00

4. Advocate Fee 4,375-00 Cm & fc not filed

5. Publication charges3,000-00

5. Typing Charges50-00 50-00

6. Writing charges

Total: 12,341-00 -NIL-

Sd/-Y.Gopala Krishna.

I A.C.J (Sr.D), Gnt., FAC.P.C.J (Sr.D),Gnt.

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(SENIOR DIVISION) AT GUNTUR

Present: Sri.Y. Gopala Krishna, I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Guntur.

Thursday, this the 23rd day of April, 2026.

O.S. No. 63 of 202 3

Between:-

M/s. Shri Kaamakshi Cotton Mills, a Proprietary concern represented by its Proprietor Pathi Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o Sambasiva Rao having its Office at Door No.43/4, 43/5, Old BGTI Oil Mill, By Pass Road, Guntur.

. . . Plaintiff.

And

1.M/s. Krishna Murthy Spinning Mills Pvt. Limited, Rep. By its Managing Director Mittapalli Siva Kumar, # 141, Nadendla Road, Timmapuram, Guntur District.

2.Mittapalli Siva Kumar, S/o Rama Rao, Hindu, age 60 years, Business, Managing Director of M/s. Krishna Murthy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., R/o Door No.12-19-120, Old Bank Road, Kothapet, Guntur.

3.Mittapalli Adi Venkata Raghava Phani Krishna @ Mittpalli Adi Venkata Raghava Krishna Phani, S/o Uma Maheswara Rao, Hindu, age 40 years, Business, Director of M/s. Krishna Murthy Spinning Mills pvt. Ltd., R/o Door No.5-60-1/127/2A, Sri Nilayam, 2nd Lane Devapuram, Guntur.

4.Mittapalli Dheeraj Krishna, S/o Siva Kumar, Hindu, aged about 28 years, Business, Director of M/s. Krishna Murthy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., R/o Door No.12-19-120, Old Bank Road, Kothapet, Guntur.

5.Mittapalli Swathi Lakshmi, D/o Siva Kumar, Hindu, aged about 32 years, Business, Director of M/s. Krishna Murthy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., R/o Door No.12-19-120, Old Bank Road, Kothapet, Guntur.

. . . Defendants.

-o0o-

This suit is came before me on 20.4.2026 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri G. Sai Krishna Srinivas, learned counsel for plaintiff and of Sri K.A. Wilson, learned counsel for defendants 1 and 2; and Defendant nos.3 to 5 were not pressed; and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following; 2

O R D E R

1.This suit is filed for the recovery of money due under the khata.

2. The main case of plaintiff, in brief, is that:

i) The Plaintiff is a proprietorship firm carrying on cotton business under the name and style of M/s.Shri Kaamakshi Cotton Mills has been supplying cotton for the past several years. The first defendant is a private limited company. The second defendant is the Managing Director, and defendants 3 to 5 are other Directors of the first defendant. The first defendant company has been a customer of the plaintiff firm by purchasing cotton lint bales since 2021. About 3 years ago, on the purchase order of defendants 2 and 3 on behalf of the first defendant, the plaintiff supplied cotton lint as per the requirement of the first defendant. During the course of business, the plaintiff firm supplied 100 FP Cotton Lint bales on 05.03.2022 worth of Rs.37,72,402/- and also supplied its last consignment of 05 FP Cotton Bales on 24.05.2022 worth of Rs.2,10,072/- ii)Subsequently, after repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants remitted Rs.7,00,000/- on 18.10.2022 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 30.01.2023 through RTGS. After those two payments, the defendants failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.33,46,763/- with interest at 21% p.a. Thereupon, the plaintiff and his Cotton Mediator – Kolla Sambasiva Rao met defendants 2 to 5 and requested them to pay the outstanding amount. At that time, defendants 2 to 5 denied to pay the balance amount, and moreover, they threatened the plaintiff not to come to their Mill for the balance amount. Thereafter, the plaintiff and Cotton Mediator – Kolla Sambasiva Rao have negotiations with defendants 2 to 5 personally and over the telephone several times. But they did not pay the balance amount. Thereupon, the plaintiff stopped sending cotton to the first defendant. Finally, the present suit is filed for the recovery of the outstanding due amount.

3. On the other hand, defendants 1 to 5 resisted the plaintiff's claim by filing written statements. Defendants 1 and 2 together filed a 3 written statement. The third defendant filed a separate written statement.

Defendants 4 and 5 adopted the written statement of defendants 1 and 2.

Subsequently, the suit is not pressed against defendants 3 to 5. The main case of defendants 1 and 2, in brief, is that:

i)First defendant was running a business at a loss due to the illegal activities of the third defendant in collusion with the plaintiff and his associates, and after the death of father of the second defendant, the second defendant got the said firm by way of family partition. He is clearing old dues and running the business in the future, but the third defendant colluded with the plaintiff and his henchmen and received sub-standard cotton bales, and grabbed a huge amount from the first defendant. In that regard, the issue was discussed within the family of defendants. In this connection, the third defendant, the plaintiff and her henchmen hatched up an evil plan to kidnap the second defendant and his family members. They succeeded in their attempts and got signatures on various documents, such as cheques, blank white papers, N.J. stamps, Indemnity bonds, etc. In fact, the second defendant never issued any purchase orders, payments, cheques, etc.

ii)The plaintiff got issued a notice before filing the suit, to which the second defendant got issued a reply notice. But the plaintiff did not issue any rejoinder notice. Hence, they urged the court to dismiss the suit.

4.The main case of third defendant, in brief, is that:

i) This suit is filed against the defendants. But the third defendant is in no way connected to the khata transaction. The documents reveal that all business transactions are between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The third defendant is only a Director. He was never involved in the business activities of the first defendant. Further, he has only a nominal share in the first defendant company. However, he resigned from the first defendant company long before the plaintiff's knowledge. Any liabilities of the first defendant are borne by defendants 1 and 2. There are disputes between the family of third defendant and the other defendants. But this case was filed against him. Hence, he urged the court to dismiss the suit.

4

5.After hearing both sides and based on the above pleadings, this court framed the following issues:

1.Whether the plaintiff supplied cotton lint to 1st defendant, as pleaded in the plaint ?

2.Whether 1st defendant is in khata due of Rs.36,46,763/- as pleaded in the plaint ?

3.Whether 3rd defendant holding nominal share in the 1st defendnat and he is not in person liable for the alleged transaction, as pleaded in the written statement of 3rd defendant ?

4.Whether plaintiff entitled to suit amount, as prayed for ?

5.To what relief ?

6. At the trial, the plaintiff examined PW 1 while relying on Exs.

A1 to A9 and Ex.X1. On the other hand, the defendants 1 and 2 examined

DW.1.

7. At the stage of continuation of cross-examination of PW1, the case was referred to the mediation centre, D.L.S.A., Guntur.

8. As per the directions of this court, both parties appeared

before the mediation center, DLS.A, Guntur, and have amicably settled

their disputes. The mediator has submitted a mediation report along with the terms of settlement dated 22.04.2026, which was duly signed by both parties.

9. Heard the learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendants.

10. After the settlement of the dispute through mediation, both parties appeared before the court. The plaintiff and defendants got examined themselves as P.W.1 and D.W.1, respectively, where they confirmed the terms and conditions as detailed in the terms of settlement.

Memorandum of agreement with terms and conditions memo is marked as Ex.X.1. They requested the Court to record their settlement.

5

11. The parties settled their dispute through the process of mediation. Ex.X1 is a memorandum of agreement with terms and conditions memo.

12. Perusal of terms of settlement showing that it consists of (2) conditions, which are mentioned hereunder:

(1) The second defendant paid an amount of Rs.4,22,529/- (Rupees four lakh twenty two thousand five hundred and twenty nine only) through D.D. (D.D.No.804315) towards full and final settlement of the suit claim against the defendants 1 and 2, and the plaintiff also received the same in the presence of elders.

(2) The dispute has been resolved between the parties voluntarily.

13. P.W.1 in his further chief examination, evidence confirmed that he agreed to pass a decree as per the terms of settlement(Ex.X1).

DW1 testified in his evidence that he agreed to pass a decree as per the terms of settlement(Ex.X1). The court is satisfied that the consent of the parties is free, voluntary, and not obtained by fraud, coercion, or undue influence.

14. The material on record demonstrates that both parties agreed to pass decree as per the terms of settlement (Ex.X1). As already observed, since the parties came to an understanding to settle their disputes amicably through the process of mediation, for the benefit of both parties, it is just and necessary to pass a decree as per the terms of settlement (Ex.X1).

15. This court already gave a finding that both parties settled their disputes amicably and came to an understanding to pass a decree in terms of the settlement (Ex.X1) through the process of mediation, and that the parties are entitled to a decree as per the settlement.

6

16.In the result, the suit is decreed as per terms of settlement (Ex.X1).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.I, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 23rd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-.Y.Gopala Krishna

I Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division),

Guntur.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:-

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1: Pathi Mallikharjuna Rao

For Defendants:

DW1 : Mittapalli Siva Kumar

Documents marked:-

Ex.A1: Tax invoice No.SKCM/L/143 dt.5.3.2022 Ex.A2: Tax Invoice No.SKCM/75 dt.24.5.2022 Ex.A3: Agricultural market committee permit No.5, dt.31.3.2022 for invoice no.SKCM/L/143. Ex.A4: Registration certificate issued by the Governement of India for the plaitniff firm dt.17.7.2018 Ex.A5: ROC search issued by Chartered Accountant dt.20.4.2023. Ex.A6: Computer general E-Way bill, dt.5.3.2022 along with Sec.65B certificate Ex.A7: Computer generated E-Way Bill, dated 24.5.2022 along with Sec.65B certificate Ex.A8: Computer Print GST Monthly return, for the month of March, 2022 along with Sec.65B certificate Ex.A9: Computer print GST Monthly return, for the month of May, 2023 along with Sec.65 B certificate.

Ex.X1 is the terms of settlement.

Sd/- Y.Gopala krishna

I Addl.C.J,(Sr. Division),Gnt.