Smt. Yarlagadda Sri Lakshmi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS : NIDADAVOLE

PRESENT:

SMT. SRILAKSHMI YARLAGADDA

Principal Junior Civil Judge – Cum –

Judicial Magistrate of I Cass, Nidadavole.

Tuesday, the 21st day of April, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 186 of 2016

Between:

Devarabotla Satyanarayana …Plaintiff

And

Borra Ramakrishna …Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 06-03-2020 for hearing in the presence of Sri. S. Kasi Visweswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.

Ch. Vijay Kumar, Advocate for the defendant and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, the

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) This suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

2) The brief averments of the plaint are that:

2.1) The schedule of the immovable property is herewith filed and herein after referred as plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is situated in Ravimetla Village.

2.2) The plaint schedule property is devolved on the plaintiff through his ancestors. Since 1985, the plaintiff has been enjoying the plaint schedule property with absolute right, title and interest. In the year 1985, the plaintiff, his brother China Satyanarayana, his senior paternal aunt Gowramma and his junior paternal uncle by name Veera 2

Venkata Rao got partitioned their ancestral properties. By virtue of partition, the senior paternal aunt got 150 Square Yards house site on the southern side of the plaint schedule property out of 450 Sq. Yds of site. Northern side 150 Sq. Yds in the plaint schedule property got acquired by the junior paternal uncle of the plaintiff by name Veera

Venkata Rao. Southern side 150 Sq. Yds was allotted to the plaintiff and his brother China Satyanarayana. As the matter stood thus the junior paternal uncle of the plaintiff bequeathed his entire properties to the plaintiff and his brother. Subsequently, the unmarried younger brother of plaintiff namely China Satyanarayana was died issueless. As such the plaint schedule property devolved to the plaintiff since the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

2.3) The senior paternal aunt of the plaintiff namely Gowramma sold away her share in the house site i.e., 150 Sq. Yds situated on the southern side of plaint schedule property to the defendant nearly in the year 1990. Since then the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. In the year 1994, the plaintiff got constructed a tiled house and since then he has been living with his family and enjoying the plaint schedule property without anybodies interruption.

The plaintiff got constructed the compound wall on four sides of the plaint schedule property. Subsequently the plaintiff removed the tiled house and got constructed the RCC building in the plaint schedule property and has been enjoying the same by paying necessary taxes to the gram panchayat and concerned authorities.

2.4) The defendant also got constructed R.C.C. building in his site situated on the southern side of the plaint schedule property and has been enjoying the same without any interruption.

3 2.5) As the matter stood thus, recently the defendant requested the plaintiff to leave 2 feet width site on the south east corner of the plaint schedule property, for which the plaintiff refused. Since then the defendant bore grudge against the plaintiff and started harassing the plaintiff by causing obstructions and hindrances to the plaintiff in enjoying the plaint schedule property without any manner of right.

2.6) The defendant used to hang the pipes and other on the southern side of the plaint schedule property with intent to weaken the wall. Whenever the plaintiff tried to rise the height of the southern side compound wall, the defendant illegally, high-handedly without any manner of right used to interfere and obstruct the plaintiff. The defendant with a sinister motive caused obstructions to the plaintiff. The plaintiff placed the matter before the elders and the elders admonished the defendant, but the defendant did not heed the words of the elders.

Since one week the defendant is proclaiming in and around the village that he would demolish the compound wall of the plaint schedule property on the south east corner and encroach the plaint schedule property at any cost.

2.7) The defendant high-handedly causing obstructions to the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff which is illegal. The defendant has no manner of right to do so. The plaintiff is having strong prima facie case as the plaintiff is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since his childhood. Balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff. Even though injunction is granted no loss would be caused to the defendant. The defendant is high handed, adamant in nature and is having mustered strength. The plaintiff cannot resist the illegal and high handed acts of the defendant. Hence, the suit.

4

3) The defendant filed written statement by denying the material allegations in the plaint contending inter alia that he never interfered with plaint schedule property and he never caused any obstruction to the plaintiff in his possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff is high handed nature litigant. The defendant is absolute owner of his property situated on the southern side of plaint schedule property which is purchased from Gowramma who is the senior paternal aunt of the plaintiff. The plaintiff could not digest the same as the said Gowramma sold the property to the defendant without offering to the plaintiff. As such the plaintiff bore grudge against the defendant and waiting for movement to create some litigation. As the matter stood thus, the defendant purchased 2.6 feet width and 24 feet of length of site from his southern side boundary holder namely Alladabina Veeraswami as mutual understanding and there is no document for the same. Since then the defendant has been enjoying his property without any obstruction of any body by annexing the extent of 2.6 * 24 feet in his site by compound walls on four sides.

3.1) Taking advantage of mutual understanding in between the defendant and Veeraswamy, the plaintiff hatched up a plan to annex 2 feet of site towards southern side of plaint schedule property. The plaintiff used to harass the defendant saying that he is having property width of 2 feet towards southern side and causing obstructions to the defendant. Being law abiding citizen, the defendant ignore the highhanded acts of the plaintiff and enjoying the property. The plaintiff who is not satisfied with his illegal and highhanded acts filed this suit with all false and untenable allegations to harass the defendant and thereby to grab the property of the defendant for thrown away prices.

5 3.2) The plaintiff has an evil eye of defendant's property and hatched a plan to grab the same and by suppressing the real facts filed this suit and approached the court with unclean hands. There is no cause of action to file the suit. The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as the plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands. The averments of the plaint are false and and are invented by the plaintiff for the purpose of the suit and the plaintiff has to prove them strictly. Therefore the suit may be dismissed with costs.

4) Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

Issue No.1)Whether the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the filing of the suit?

Issue No.2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent

injunction as prayed for?

Issue No.3) To what relief?

5) To substantiate the claim of Plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and documents Exs.A.1 to A3 are exhibited on behalf of Plaintiff. The plaintiff got filed the chief affidavits of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and thereafter on 3.9.2019 the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed memo to eschew the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 as they are not coming to court.

The said memo is recorded and the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 is eschewed. To disprove the case of the plaintiff and to substantiate his case, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.B1.

6) Heard the learned counsel for both parties to the suit.

Issue Nos.1 and 2

7) The entire house site and house of the plaintiff in an extent of 300

Sq. Yds is shown as plaint schedule property. There is no dispute about the possession of the schedule property. The defendant is not disputing 6 the possession of the plaintiff in the schedule property. The plaintiff is also not disputing the possession of the defendant of his site situated on the southern side of the plaint schedule property. The case of the plaintiff and the main allegation against the defendant is that whenever the plaintiff is trying to increase the height of the compound wall, the defendant is obstructing him and the defendant is hanging the pipes to his wall to weaken the wall and thereby interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. In this regard, it has been clearly admitted by the defendant in his cross examination that the compound wall is within the site of the plaintiff and the wall is constructed by the plaintiff and he arranged the pipe line to the wall of the plaintiff and he has no right to arrange the pipes to the wall of the plaintiff and he constructed the bathrooms in the north east corner and the roof is extended on the wall of the plaintiff up to 3 inches and when the plaintiff is increasing the height of the compound wall he objected for the same, as such the plaintiff approached the court. These admissions of the defendant clearly proves the allegations and case of the plaintiff.

The admissions of the defendant clearly shows the interference of the defendant in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the schedule property. When the defendant himself clearly admitted that he objected to raise the height of the compound wall and arranged the pipe line to the wall of the plaintiff, which is the case of the plaintiff and which leads the plaintiff to file the suit, nothing is required to prove by the plaintiff and it can be safely conclude that the plaintiff could able to prove his case.

8) From the evidence on record, it is established that the plaint schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of plaintiff and the 7 plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction. Accordingly, both the issues are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE NO.3:-

9. On an earnest consideration of respective pleadings of both parties to the suit and the evidence of both oral and documentary let in by them; coupled with the findings made in aforementioned Issues, it is inevitable to hold that the suit is deserved to be decreed with costs.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against defendant by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and supporters from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day of April, 2020.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

NIDADAVOLE

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For the Plaintiff: P.W.1- Devarabotla Satyanarayana

For the Defendant: D.W.1: Borra Ramakrishna

Exhibits marked

For the Plaintiff: Ex.A.1 is the Registration extract of Registered 'will' dt. 23-09-1983 Ex.A.2 is Original Electricity bills in o.S.109/2014 Ex.A.3 is House Tax and Water Tax receipts.

For the Defendant: Ex.D1 is True extract ofRegistered sale deed dt. 26-12-1985 in respect of the house property of the defendant.

P.J.C.J.-Cum-

J.M.F.C.NDD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS : NIDADAVOLE

PRESENT:

SMT. SRILAKSHMI YARLAGADDA

Principal Junior Civil Judge – Cum –

Judicial Magistrate of I Cass, Nidadavole.

Tuesday, the 21st day of April, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 147 of 2019

Between:

State Bank of India, Tadimalla Brnch,

Rep. by its Branch Manager. ....Plaintiff

And

1. Sunkara Damodara Rao

2. Sunkara Seetha Ramayya ....Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 11-03-2020 for hearing in the presence of Sri P. Udaya Bhanuji, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri. K.V. Rao,

Advocate for the defendants and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments of both parties, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) The suit has been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,50,730/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand Seven hundred and Thirty only) from the defendants.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are that:

2.1) The 1st defendant requested the plaintiff bank to sanction

Rs.6,50,000/- under Star Card Loan Facility. He agreed to utilize

Rs.3,25,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Five thousand Only) for consumption needs and Rs.3,25,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Five thousand Only) for land development agreeing to repay the month with interest @13.25% per annum with half-yearly rests subject to variation of rate from time to time as per R.B.I., guidelines. The 2nd defendant agreed to stand as guarantor for the said loan. The loan was sanctioned by the 2 plaintiff Bank and they acknowledged the loan arrangement letter agreeing the terms of the Bank. The 1st defendant deposited his title deeds with the plaintiff Bank and created equitable mortgage as security for the loan and executed Registered Memorandum of deposit of title deeds on 02.06.2007.

On 07.06.2007 the 1st defendant executed Hypothecation Agreement and the 2nd defendant executed deed of guarantee for Rs.6,50,000/-. They have agree to pay the consumption loan in 5 yearly instalments and the land development loan in 7 yearly installments commencing from June, 2008.

The defendants agreed to pay all incidental charges including inspection, legal and other expenses and also agreed to abide by the conditions of the documents executed by them.

2.2) The 1st defendant opened separate accounts with the plaintiff

Bank and withdrawn the loans amount through his accounts. The accounts are being maintained by the plaintiff in its regular course of Banking business. The consumption Loan account number is 62033391652. The land development loan account number is 62034221769.

2.3) DETAILS OF MORTGAGE

A) Name of the Mortgagor : The 1st defendant

B) Name of the Mortgagee : The plaintiff bank

C) Amount borrowed : Rs.6,50,000/-

D) Date of loan : 07-06-2007

E) Rate of interest : 13.7% p.a. with half yearly rests subject to variation rate of interest from time to time as per R.B.I. guidelines

F) Property mortgaged : Plaint schedule property G) Whether any amount paid : As shown in the account copy

H) Amount due : Rs. 16,50,730/- 3 2.4) The plaintiff and its officials demanded the defendants so many times to repay the amount. The defendants have postponed the payment on one pretext or other and committed default. The plaintiff got issued demand notices dt.27-11-2017 to the defendants demanding them to repay the amount, even then they have not discharged the debt. The amount due as per the account number 62033391652 is Rs. 7,86,770/- and as per the account number 62034221769 is Rs. 8,63,960/- i.e. total 16,50,730/-.

Hence the suit is filed for the total sum of Rs. 16,50,730/- with subsequent interest and costs. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to discharge the debt. As the defendants failed to repay the amount, the plaintiff is entitled to enforce the mortgage on the mortgaged property for sale of the same through court cancelling the right of redemption and for adjusting the sale proceeds to the outstanding amount.

2.5) The rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff is only as per R.B.I.

directions. The usurious loans Act has no application. As per section 21-A of the bank and companies regulation Act 1/84 there is no jurisdiction to the civil court to decide whether the rate of interest charged by the bank is excessive or penal. The rate of interest charged by the bank is fair and reasonable having regard to the prevailing rate of interest in the private lending market is 36% compounded.

3) The 1st defendant filed his written statement which is adopted by the 2nd defendant denying the material allegations of the plaint contending interalia that the 1st defendant availed loan in the year 2007 and paid the same as agreed by him. Except that the 1st defendant never obtained any other loan as alleged by the plaintiff Bank. At the time of granting loan, the 4 plaintiff bank obtained number of signatures from the defendant.

Subsequently, the 1st defendant paid said loan amount as agreed by him to plaintiff Bank. The signatures on the memorandum of deposit of title deeds are not belongs to the 1st defendant and the same are forged by plaintiff bank to save the limitation. The suit itself is barred by limitation. There is no cause of action to file the suit, as such the suit is not maintainable.

Hence the suit may be dismissed with costs.

4) On the basis of pleadings of both the parties to the suit, the following issues have been settled for trial:

Issue No. 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the

preliminary decree as prayed for?

Issue No. 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount

as prayed for?

Issue No.3) To what relief?

5. To substantiate the claim of Plaintiff Bank, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank is examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to A.10 are exhibited on behalf of Plaintiff Bank.

6. To disprove the case of the plaintiff bank and to substantiate his defence the 1st defendant himself is examined as D.W.1 and no documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendants side.

7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties to the suit.

Issue Nos. 1 and 2 :

8. The case of the plaintiff bank is that at request of 1st defendant, they have sanctioned total loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- and the 2nd defendant stood as guarantor and the 1st defendant executed the memorandum of deposit of 5 title deeds and he deposited his title deeds and pattadar pass book and thereafter the defendants failed to repay the amount.

9. In this regard the case of the defendants is that the 1st defendant availed loan in the year 2007 and repaid the same and except that he has not availed any other loan and his signature was forged on the memorandum of deposit of title deeds.

10. The branch manager of the plaintiff bank as P.W.1 filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the averments of the plaint. According to his evidence at request of 1st defendant, they have sanctioned total loan of Rs.

6,50,000/- and the 2nd defendant stood as guarantor and the 1st defendant executed the memorandum of deposit of title deeds and he deposited his title deeds and pattadar pass book and thereafter the defendants failed to repay the amount.

11. According to the evidence of D.W.1/1st defendant he has obtained loan of Rs.3,25,000/- in the year 2007 and the amount was transferred to his account and except that no amount is transferred to his account and he did not avail loan for land development and at the time of granting loan the plaintiff bank obtained number of signatures on various unfilled papers and later he paid loan amount of Rs.3,25,000/- and the signatures on the memorandum of deposit of title deeds is not belongs to him and same are forged and fabricated.

12. During the cross examination of D.W.1, he admitted that he signed on Ex.A.5 in Sub Registrar Office by depositing Ex.A3 and A4 and the signature on Ex.A.6 is belongs to him. Though the defendants pleaded 6 in the written statement that the signature of 1st defendant is forged on memorandum of deposit of title deeds, which is marked as Ex.A5, D.W.1 clearly admitted that he signed on Ex.A.5 in the Sub Registrar Office by depositing Ex.A.3 and A.4. This admission of D.W.1 falsifies his own case and supporting the case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant deposited

Ex.A.3 and A.4 and executed Ex.A.5. Further, to prove his case that he repaid the loan amount, except examining himself as D.W.1, the 1st defendant did not file any documentary proof. Had really the 1st defendant repaid the loan, he ought to have obtain the receipts from the bank. In the absence of any cogent evidence the plea of the defendants is not acceptable.

13. The oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to A.10 clearly shows that the 1st defendant availed amount total loan of Rs.6, 50, 000/- and executed Ex.A.5 and A.6 and the 2nd defendant stood as guarantor and thereafter failed to discharge the loan amount. Though P.W.1 is cross examined at length nothing contrary is elicited to disbelieve his evidence.

Hence, it can be safely conclude that both defendants are jointly and severally is liable for the suit amount and the plaintiff entitled for preliminary decree.

14. In view of the above said discussion, both the issues are answered in favour of plaintiff bank and against both the defendants.

Issue No.3

11) In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs for

Rs.16,50,730/-, (Rupees Sixteen lakhs Fifty thousand Seven hundred and

Thirty only) together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till date 7 of realisation on amount of Rs.16,50,730/-. (Rupees Sixteen lakhs Fifty thousand Seven hundred and Thirty only). Time for redemption 3 months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day of April, 2020.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

NIDADAVOLE.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For the Plaintiff: P.W.1- P. Pavan Kumar For the Defendant: D.W.1- Sunkara Damodara Rao

Exhibits marked

For the Plaintiff: For the Defendant: Nil Ex.A1 is Loan application of 1st defendant dt. 29-5-2007 Ex.A2 is Loan sanction letter dt. 30-5-2007 Ex.A3 is Registered sale deed of 1st defendant dt. 20-3-2006 Ex.A4 is Original Pattadar Pass book in the name of D1 bearing No.E650629 Ex.A5 is Registered Memorandum of deposit of title deed dt. 2-6-2007 Ex.A6 is Hypothecation agreement executed by D1 dt.7-6-2007 Ex.A7 is Deed of guarantee executed by D2 dt. 7-6-2007 Ex.A8 is Office copy of legal notices dent to D1 and D2 dt.27-11-2017 Ex.A9 is Account copy of1st defendant. Ex.A10 is Account copy bearing No.62034221769

P.J.C.J.-Cum-

J.M.F.C.NDD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS : NIDADAVOLE

PRESENT:

SMT. SRILAKSHMI YARLAGADDA

Principal Junior Civil Judge – Cum –

Judicial Magistrate of I Cass, Nidadavole.

Tuesday, the 21st day of April, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 75 of 2018

Between:

Tangella Venkateswara Rao, …Plaintiff

And

Ale Balakishna ....Defendant.

This suit is coming on 13-03-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.V. Srinivas, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri A.S.

Viswanath, Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1. The suit has been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the defendant on the premise that on 17-05-2015 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from plaintiff for the purpose of his family expenses and executed a demand promissory note on the even date at the house of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 18% p.a. and thereafter inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through elders, the defendant failed to discharge the said debt despite legal notice got issued by the plaintiff on 23-9-2017.

2. Opposing the suit and denying the execution of suit promissory note, the defendant filed Written Statement contending inter alia that the plaintiff is stranger to him and he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and he has no necessity to borrow amount from a stranger and 2 the attestors and scribe are strangers to him and he strongly believes that all are close associates and got filed this suit to get wrongful gain and after due verification of promissory note, it is clear that the signature across the revenue label on the promissory note is not belongs to the defendant and it is forged and fabricated promissory note and he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time and he never executed the suit pronote and he suspects that the suit promissory note is a rank forgery and no consideration is passed as alleged by the plaintiff and the plaintiff shall strictly prove that the defendant received the amount and executed the promissory note and he reserves his right to file petition under section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send the promissory note for expert opinion and there is no cause of action.

Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

3. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties to the suit, the following issues have been settled for trial:

Issue No. 1) Whether the suit promissory note dt.17.05.2015 is

true, valid and binding on the defendant?

Issue No. 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for?

Issue No.3) To what relief?

4. To substantiate his suit claim, the plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and the attestor is examined as P.W.2, documents Ex. A.1 and A.2 are exhibited on behalf of plaintiff. To substantiate his case, the defendant is examined as D.W.1 and no documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendant side.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties to the suit.

3

ISSUE NO.1:-

6. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff is examined as

P.W.1 and the attestor is examined as P.W.2. P.Ws. 1 and 2 deposed that on 17.05.2015, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from P.W.1 and executed Ex.A.1. demand promissory note in favour of

P.W.1 agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 18% per annum.

7. The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that the entire transaction including passing of consideration and execution of suit promissory note under Ex.A.1 was taken place in the presence of P.W.2, scribe and defendant and that P.W.2 attested Ex.A.1.

8. The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show further that inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant failed to discharge the debt due under Ex.A.1 and issued Ex.A.2 legal Notice and the defendant failed to discharge the amount de under the promissory note.

9. It is thus, the plaintiff by examining himself as P.W.1. and the attestor as P.W.2 could relieve from initial burden lies on him that on 17.05.2015 the defendants jointly borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from him and executed Ex.A.1 in his favour, agreeing to discharge the debt due under Ex.A.1 with interest at 18% p.a.

10. The case of the defendant and his evidence as D.W.1 is that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and he has no necessity to borrow any amount from a stranger and the attestors and scribe are also strangers to him and after due verification of promissory note, it is clear 4 that the signature across the revenue label on the promissory note is not belongs to the defendant and it is forged and fabricated promissory note and he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time and he never executed the suit pronote and he suspects that the suit promissory note is a rank forgery and no consideration is passed as alleged by the plaintiff.

11. As per the evidence of D.W.1 after issuing legal notice by the plaintiff he approached the plaintiff along with elders. But to prove his contention, the defendant did not examine any of the said elders. Even after receiving notice from the plaintiff he has not chosen to issue reply notice. If really he has approached the plaintiff along with elders nothing prevented him to examine the elders on his behalf. Further as per the pleadings of the defendant the plaintiff is stranger to him. But contrary to his pleadings it was suggested to the plaintiff that when the friend of the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff, he was asked to sign on the pronote and since the defendant refused to do so, the plaintiff forged his signature and filed the suit. On one hand the defendant is saying that the plaintiff is stranger to him. On the other hand he is saying that when his friend borrowed amount from the plaintiff, he was asked to sign on the pronote and since he refused to do so, the plaintiff forged his signature. To prove any of his contention he did not examine either the elders or his friend who is said to be borrowed amount from him. The case of the defendant is contrary to his suggestions given to

P.W.1. If the plea of the defendant is true there is no possibility to take different versions. As such no credibility can be given to the case of the defendant and the evidence of D.W.1.

5

12. P.Ws. 1 and 2 unequivocally deposed as to the factum of due execution of Ex.A.1 by the defendant. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were cross examined at length but their evidence could not be shattered. The evidence of P.Ws.

1 and 2 is consistent on all material facts with reference to due execution of Ex.A.1. Therefore, there are no suggesting inferences to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, substantiated by Ex.A.1.

13. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, substantiated by Ex.A.1 goes to prove and establish that on 17.05.2015 the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs. 2,00,000/- from P.W.1 and jointly executed demand promissory note under Ex.A.1, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a. and thereafter, the defendant has failed to discharge the debt due to P.W.1 inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants holding that the suit promissory note under Ex.A.1 Dt. 17.05.2015 is true, valid and binding on the defendant.

ISSUE NO.2:

14. In the light of findings made in Issue No.1, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, holding that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount.

ISSUE NO.3:

15. On an earnest consideration of respective pleadings of both parties to the suit and the evidence both oral and documentary let in by them coupled with the findings made in the aforementioned issues, the suit is deserved to be decreed.

6

16. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs. 3,00,000/-, (Rupees Three Lakhs only) together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% p.a. from the date of the decree till realization on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.( Rupees Two

Lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation on computer by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 11th day of March, 2019.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NIDADAVOLE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS : PW.1. Tangella Venkateswara Rao,

PW.2. Kaja Ravi Kumar

FOR DEFENDANTS:

D.W.1. Ale Balakishan

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS :

Ex.A1: is the original promissory note dt. 17-05-2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A2: Office Copy of Legal Notice dt. 23.9.2017.

FOR DEFENDANTS : N I L

P.J.C.J.-CUM-

J.M.F.C.NDD

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: NIDADAVOLU.

PRESENT: Smt. Sri Lakshmi Yarlagadda

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavolu.

FAC/Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole Thursday the 28th day of February, 2019

CALENDAR CASE No.57/2019

Between: State: Sub Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Kovvur (Cr.No.211/2018) … Complainant.

And

Rajulapati Venkateswara Rao, S/o Somaraju, Age 20 years, R/o Korupalli village, Nidadavole Mandal ….Accused This case is coming on 27-02-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and of Sri K.Venkateswara Rao,

Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing the Arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that he was found in possession of 41-180 ml Anytime Fine Whisky bottles, and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:- 2.1) On 26-01-2019 at about 2.30 P.M the accused was caught hold in Lingampalli village by L.W.2- J.Srinivasa Balaji, when he was found in possession of 10-180 ml Old Label Sup-grain Whisky bottles, 1-180 ml Mens Club Classic Whisky bottles in Total 12 bottles and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 34(a) A.P Excise Act and is liable to be convicted for the said offence.

3.This court took the cognizance under section 34 (a) of A. P.

Excise Act. On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

2

4. Accused is examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., he denied the offence. Hence the charge under section 34(a) of A. P. Excise Act is framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the accused has been tried for the said charge.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to

4. Exs.P1 to P6 and M.Os.1 and 2 got marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances, appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied them as false and reported no defence evidence.

7. Now the point for consideration is :- whether the prosecution establishes its case by proving seizure of the contra band under cover of Ex.P3 mediators report to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge under sec 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8.The case of the prosecution is that the accused was found in possession of 10-180 ml Old Label Sup-grain Whisky bottles, 1-180 ml

Mens Club Classic Whisky bottles in Total 12 bottles , that the contra band was seized under cover of Ex.P3 mediators report.

9.At the outset, it is significant to note that the edifice of the case of the prosecution mainly rests on the testimonies of PW.3 and 4 who are an investigating officers and who said to have effected the arrest of accused and seizure of the stolen property under cover of

Ex.P.3mediatornama and registration of the case respectively.

3 10.According to the case of prosecution, PW3 arrested the accused in the presence of PWs.1 and 2 and seized the contraband from the possession of accused, under cover of mediatornama. But, PWs.1 and 2 is turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

His evidence is to the effect that on 24-12-2018 while he was going to

Korumamidi village, one constable obtained his signature on some papers, but he do not know the contents therein. P.Ws.1 and 2 did not depose that the police arrested the accused and the contraband was seized in his presence as alleged by the prosecution. As such, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is of no avail to substantiate the case of prosecution.

11. Adverting to the testimony of PW.3 admittedly, the alleged place of arrest of the accused and seizure of the contraband is situated in a busy locality. In such a case, it is presumable that any number of independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality can be secured to act as mediators for arrest of the accused and seizure of the alleged stolen property. As such, P.W.3 had an opportunity to secure independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality, where the alleged arrest of the accused was taken place. But P.W.3 did not do so, infers thereby, the mandatory requirement under section 100(4) Cr.P.C.

has not been complied with. P.W.4 is not the eye witness to the alleged arrest and seizure of the property and he did not speak anything about the accused and he continued investigation only basing on Ex.P.3. In the circumstances, it is highly unsafe to rely on testimonies of P.Ws. 3 and 4.

4

12. For the afore said reasons, it is inevitable to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving the guilt of the accused for the charge U/s. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt and that the suggested plea of the accused that the case has been foisted against him for statistical purpose cannot be ruled out.

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge

U/s. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and is acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. M.Os.

1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for Six months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of February, 2019.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate, FAC/Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavolu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: PW.1: R.VenkateswaraRao PW.2: Meripo Suvarna Raju PW.3: Ch.Ajay Kumar Sing, SI of police, Enforcement wing Eluru. PW.2: J.Srinivasa Balaji,Sub-inspector of Police, Kovvur P & E P.S. For Defence: Nil Documents marked For prosecution : Ex.P.1/24-12-2018 : Signature of P.W.1 on Mediators Report Ex.P.2/24-12-2018 : Signature of P.W.2 on the mediators report Ex.P.2/24-12-2018 : Mediators Report . Ex.P.4/24-12-2018 : First Information Report. Ex.P.5/04-01-2019 : Laboratory Analysis Report. Ex.P.6/07-01-2019 : Attested copy of Proceedings of DCP, P & E, Eluru, W.G. For Defence: Nil MOs. Marked M.O.1 :1-180 ml Sample bottle of Label Sup.Grain Whisky. M.O.1 :1-180 ml Sample bottle of Mens Club Classic Whisky.

J.F.C.M.-Cum-J.M.F.C FAC/AJCJ.-Cum-AJMFC,NDD 5

Form No. 72 Calendar and Judgment District of West Godavari Calendar of cases tried by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC/Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole

Judgment in Calendar Case No. 57/2019

Nature of Offence: Under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Date of Judgment 28-02-2019. Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of offence Report of apprehension Release commenceclosure of sentence or Complainant of accused on bail ment of trial order trial 41-A 24-12-2018 24-12-2018 24-12-2018 Cr.P.C. 26-02-2019 27-02-2019 28-02-2019 Notice

Explanation for the delay : the delay is due to non production of witnesses.

Complainant: The State rep. by Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Kovvur.

Name of Father Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal. accused name Rajulapati Somaraju 20 Hindu -- Korupalli Nidadavole Venkateswarao years

Pleaded : Not Guilty Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge U/s. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and is acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds if any of the accused shall be in force for Six months.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC/Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavolu.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Eluru.

6

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: NIDADAVOLU.

PRESENT: Smt. Sri Lakshmi Yarlagadda

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavolu.

FAC/Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole Thursday the 28th day of February, 2019

CALENDAR CASE No.48/2019

Between: State: Sub Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Kovvur (Cr.No.14/2019) … Complainant.

And

Gadhukuti Nageswara Rao, S/o Brahmayya, Age 65 years, R/o Korumamidi village, Nidadavole Mandal ….Accused

This case is coming on 27-02-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and of Sri K.Venkateswara Rao,

Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing the Arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that he was found in possession of 8-180 ml Double Kick Fine Whisky bottles, and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:- 2.1) On 22-01-2019 at about 4.00 P.M the accused was caught hold Near Mavulamma Cheruvugattu in Korumamidi village by

L.W.3 J.Srinivasa Balaji, when he was found in possession of 8-180 ml

Double Kick Fine Whisky bottles and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 34(a) A.P Excise Act and is liable to be convicted for the said offence.

2 3.This court took the cognizance under section 34 (a) of A. P.

Excise Act. On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. Accused is examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., he denied the offence. Hence the charge under section 34(a) of A. P. Excise Act is framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the accused has been tried for the said charge.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to

3. Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O.1 got marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances, appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied them as false and reported no defence evidence.

7. Now the point for consideration is :- whether the prosecution establishes its case by proving seizure of the contra band under cover of Ex.P3 mediators report to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge under sec 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8.The case of the prosecution is that the accused was found in possession of 8-180 ml Double Kick Fine Whisky bottles that the contra band was seized under cover of Ex.P3 mediators report.

9.At the outset, it is significant to note that the edifice of the case of the prosecution mainly rests on the testimonies of PW.3 who is an investigating officers and who said to have effected the arrest of accused and seizure of the stolen property under cover of

Ex.P.3mediatornama and registration of the case respectively.

3

10. According to the case of prosecution, PW.3 arrested the accused in the presence of PWs.1 and 2 and seized the contraband from the possession of accused, under cover of mediatornama. But, PWs.1 and 2 are turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

His evidence is to the effect that on 22-01-2018 while he was going to

Korumamidivillage, one constable obtained his signature on some papers, but he do not know the contents therein. P.Ws.1 and 2 did not depose that the police arrested the accused and the contraband was seized in his presence as alleged by the prosecution. As such, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is of no avail to substantiate the case of prosecution.

11. Adverting to the testimony of PW.3 admittedly, the alleged place of arrest of the accused and seizure of the contraband is situated in a busy locality. In such a case, it is presumable that any number of independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality can be secured to act as mediators for arrest of the accused and seizure of the alleged stolen property. As such, P.W.3 had an opportunity to secure independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality, where the alleged arrest of the accused was taken place. But P.W.3 did not do so, infers thereby, the mandatory requirement under section 100(4) Cr.P.C.

has not been complied with. P.W.3 is not the eye witness to the alleged arrest and seizure of the property and he did not speak anything about the accused and he continued investigation only basing on Ex.P.3. In the circumstances, it is highly unsafe to rely on testimonies of P.Ws.3.

4

12. For the afore said reasons, it is inevitable to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving the guilt of the accused for the charge U/s. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt and that the suggested plea of the accused that the case has been foisted against him for statistical purpose cannot be ruled out.

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge

U/s. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and is acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. M.O.

1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for Six months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of February, 2019.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate, FAC/Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavolu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: PW.1:Rachamalla VenkateswaraRao PW.2:A.Venkatesulu PW.3:J.Srinivasa Balaji,Sub-inspector of Police, Kovvur P & E P.S. For Defence: Nil Documents marked For prosecution : Ex.P.1/22-01-2019 : Signature of P.W.1 on Mediators Report Ex.P.2/22-01-2019 : Signature of P.W.2 on Mediators Report . Ex.P.3/22-01-2019 : Mediators Report . Ex.P.4/22-01-2019 : First Information Report. Ex.P.5/01-02-2019 : Laboratory Analysis Report. Ex.P.6/05-02-2019 : Attested copy of Proceedings of DCP, P & E, Eluru, W.G. For Defence: Nil MOs. Marked M.O.1 :1-180 ml Sample bottle of Double Kick Fine Whisky.

J.F.C.M.-Cum-J.M.F.C FAC/AJCJ.-Cum-AJMFC,NDD 5

Form No. 72 Calendar and Judgment District of West Godavari Calendar of cases tried by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC/Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole

Judgment in Calendar Case No. 48/2019

Nature of Offence: Under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Date of Judgment 28-02-2019. Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of offence Report of apprehension Release commenceclosure of sentence or Complainant of accused on bail ment of trial order trial 22-01-2019 22-01-2019 41-A 22-01-2019 Cr.P.C. 26-02-2019 27-02-2019 28-02-2019 Notice

Explanation for the delay : the delay is due to non production of witnesses.

Complainant: The State rep. by Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Kovvur.

Name of Father name Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal. accused Gadchukuti Brahmayya 65 Hindu -- Korumamidi Nidadavole Nageswara Rao years

Pleaded : Not Guilty Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge U/s. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and is acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds if any of the accused shall be in force for Six months.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC/Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavolu.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Eluru.

6