1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SURYAPET

(Dated this the 27th day of June, 2018)

Present: Smt V.Sharada Devi,

Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet.

O.S.No. 72 of 2014

Between:
Khammampati Saidulu S/o Narsaiah, age: 40 years, occ: Business,
R/o H.No.1-4-62/44, Kotamysamma Bazaar, Suryapet townand
Mandal, Nalgonda District.
…Plaintiff
AND
Banothu Sreenu S/o Redya, age: 31 years, Occ Business, R/o
H.No.5-77, Noothankal village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
…Defendant
This case is coming on 11-06-2018, for consideration before me in
the presence of Sri Shaik Thaj, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri
Y.Venkata Bucheshwar Rao, Advocate for the defendant, upon perusing
the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments, till this day the
Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT

1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant

for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,85,157/- along with interest at the rate of

24% per annum till the realization of entire decreetal amount.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are:

The plaintiff and the defendant are well acquainted with each

other due to their vegetable business and out of such acquaintance the

defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- for his family and

business necessities on 08.09.2012. After receiving the said amount, as a

collateral security the defendant has executed demand promissory note

for Rs.20,000/- and for Rs.1,00,000/- and further executed a deed for

Rs.1,20,000/- on even date in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of

attestors, by agreeing to repay the same within six months with interest at

the rate of 24% per annum to the plaintiff or to the person ordered by him.

For easy repayment of due amount the defendant has executed three

documents i.e., two promissory notes cum receipts and a deed. The

defendant had also borrowed an amount of Rs.47,000/- for his family and
 2

business necessities from the plaintiff on 12.11.2012 at Suryapet and as

a collateral security, he had executed another demand promissory note

on the even date in the presence of attestors by agreeing to repay same

with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. After availing the loan amount

the defendant did not pay any amount, in spite of several demands made

by the plaintiff and gained time on false and fictitious grounds. Vexed with

his indifferent attitude, the plaintiff had also placed the matter before the

elders but it was not settled. On the other hand, the defendant is trying to

alienate his house bearing No.5-77 situated at Noothankal village in the

name of his kith and kin to evade the payment of due amount to the

plaintiff. On 23.02.2014 the plaintiff approached the defendant and

demanded him to discharge the due amount but the defendant refused to

pay the said amount. Thus, having left with no other remedy, the plaintiff

has approached this Court for recovery of the due amount from the

defendant. Hence, the suit.

3. On receipt the summons the defendant though remained

exparte, later, came up with the petition filed under Order IX Rule 7

C.P.C., i.e., I.A.No.285/2014 which was allowed and thereby he had filed

his written statement.

4. The averments of the written statement filed by the

defendant in brief are:

5. The defendant has denied about the borrowing of amounts by

him from the plaintiff i.e., on 08.09.2012 and also on 12.11.2012 at

Suryapet respectively by executing demand promissory notes and also a

deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the defendant is a

vegetable vendor at Nuthankal and he used to purchase the vegetables

from the plaintiff on cash and as well as credit basis. During the course of

business he fell some due amounts to the plaintiff towards vegetables

 3

supplied to him on credit basis and due to loss in his business, he could

not clear the entire due amounts at once. The defendant also fell due

amounts to some more people at Noothankal area and all his creditors

including the plaintiff mounted pressure upon him to clear off the due

amounts. He requested his creditors to wait for some time but the plaintiff

did not heed to his repeated requests. On 08.09.2012 the plaintiff along

with some anti social elements approached the defendant at Noothankal

and demanded him to clear off the entire dues i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- as per

his calculation. When the defendant expressed his inability to pay such

huge amounts at once then the plaintiff along with his henchmen used

criminal force against him and his wife and forcibly obtained two

promissory notes i.e., for Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively and

also a bond for the entire amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. The plaintiff had also

obtained the signatures of the defendant on another blank promissory

note. The suit promissory notes and the bond are the same documents

on which the defendant put his signatures nominally, in a helpless

situation. At the time of executing those documents, the so called

attestors or the scribe were not present and the same is well known to the

villagers, who were present at that time. The financial condition of the

defendant got completely deteriorated as such, the other creditors also

started adopting coercive methods against him for collecting the due

amounts. On 20.02.2014 some of the creditors attacked him and

manhandled him by demanding to clear off the dues, as such he stated to

them that he will clear off the dues, by selling away his house at

Noothankal village. On coming to know about his intention, the plaintiff in

active collusion with his supporters has filed this suit on false and

fictitious grounds with a view to gain wrongfully. The defendant had filed

I.P.No.2/2014 to declare him as insolvent and to adjust his assets and

liabilities as per the provisions of Provincial Insolvency Act and in that

 4

petition, the plaintiff herein is shown as respondent no.1. The suit has to

be decided subject to the result of said I.P., pending on the file of this

Court. The defendant has never borrowed any amount much less the suit

amount from the plaintiff, as such, the suit pronotes and the bond are not

supported by any consideration. Those documents also suffers from

material alterations as such, the suit is not maintainable and thereby

prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

6. Upon perusal of the pleadings of both the parties on

record, this Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the suit pronotes dt: 8.09.2012 and 12.11.2012

are true, valid and binding against the defendant?
2. Whether the suit promissory notes relied upon by the
plaintiff are devoid of consideration?
3. Whether the suit pronotes are forged and fabricated?
4. Whether the suit documents are materially altered?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit
amount as prayed for?
6. If so, to what relief?

7. The plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked

Exs.A.1 to A.8. No evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant and no

documents marked.

8. Heard the arguments of plaintiff’s counsel.

9. Defendant counsel called absent. Hence, his arguments are

treated as heard.

10. Now the issues for discussion : ISSUES Nos.1 to 4 : It is

the case of the plaintiff/PW.1 that he and the defendant are well

acquainted with each other, due to their vegetable business and out of

such acquaintance the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,40,000/-

on 08.09.2012 i.e., Rs.20,000/- by executing promissory note cum receipt

as collateral security and Rs.1,00,000/- by executing promissory note as

collateral security and Rs.1,20,000/- by executing a deed in his favour

before the attestors with his own handwriting by agreeing to repay the

same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, within six months to the
 5

plaintiff/PW.1 or to the person ordered by him. According to the

plaintiff/PW.1, the defendant has also borrowed an amount of Rs.47,000/-

on 22.11.2012 by executing demand promissory note on the even date in

the presence of attestors by agreeing to repay the same with interest at

the rate of 24% per annum. In support of his intention PW.1 has filed

Exs.A.1 to A.3 which are the original promissory notes dt: 08.09.2012

said to have been executed by the defendant in his favour for

Rs.20,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.47,000/- respectively. He has also filed

Exs.A.4 to A.6 which are the receipts dt: 8.09.2012 and 12.11.2012 for

the alleged money transactions covered under Exs.A.1 to A.3. Ex.A.7 is

the bond dt: 8.9.2012 said to have been executed by the defendant in

favour of the plaintiff/PW.1, Ex.A.7 reveals about borrowing of

Rs.1,20,000/- by the defendant from PW.1 on 08.09.2012.

11. It is the contention of the defendant in his written statement

that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff/PW.1 much less the

suit amount and the alleged documents are not supported by any

consideration. As per his pleadings, he used to purchase vegetables

from the plaintiff/PW.1 on cash and as well as credit basis and during the

course of his business, he fell some due amounts to the plaintiff/PW.1 for

the vegetables supplied to him on credit basis. His pleadings further

reveals that due to loss in his business he could not clear off the due

amounts as such, on 08.09.2012 the plaintiff/PW.1 along with anti social

elements approached him by demanding to clear off the entire due

amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and at that time by using criminal force against

him and his wife, the plaintiff/PW.1 obtained two promissory notes and as

well as bond i.e., Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.7 herein. As per his pleadings,

there is no dispute on behalf of defendant regarding his alleged

signatures on Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.7 respectively. It is the case of the

defendant that the plaintiff/PW.1 obtained his signatures on the above

 6

documents forcibly and those documents were not executed in the

presence of the so called attestors or scribe.

12. In support of his alleged contention the defendant did not

adduce any oral or documentary evidence and his pleadings are silent

with regard to lodging of any criminal complaint by him or his wife against

the plaintiff/PW.1 for forcibly obtaining his signatures on the above

documents. Moreover his pleadings also do not reveal whether he had

sent any legal notice to the plaintiff/PW.1 for return of the alleged

documents as they were not executed by him legally for discharge of the

due amounts which are required to be paid by him for the alleged supply

of vegetables to him by PW.1. Though it is contended by the defendant in

his pleadings that he used to purchase the vegetables from PW.1 on

cash and as well as credit basis, he did not choose to adduce any oral or

documentary evidence to that effect and his pleadings are silent about

the exact due amounts payable by him to PW.1 out of his alleged

vegetable business.

13. Except contending that Exs.A.1 to A.7 are not valid

documents, the defendants did not chose to cross-examine PW.1 with

regard to the genuineness of those documents. Moreover, as the

defendant has admitted his signatures on the documents filed by the

plaintiff/PW.1, the burden shifts upon him to prove that the suit pronotes

under Exs.A.1 to A.3 are devoid of consideration and they are fabricated

documents, containing material alterations. But defendant failed to

discharge his burden. Having failed to cross-examine PW.1, in respect of

the above documents and having failed to adduce any cogent evidence in

support of his pleadings contained in his written statement, it can be

clearly held that the defendant failed to discharge his burden. As the

evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged and un-rebutted it is clearly

evident that the plaintiff/PW.1 has proved his claim against the defendant
 7

basing on the suit pronotes under Exs.A.1 to A.3 and the bond under

Ex.A.7. As such, issue Nos.1 to 4 are answered in favour of the plaintiff

and as against the defendant.

14. ISSUE No.5 : In view of the discussion made supra, this

court is of the opinion that the plaintiff/PW.1 has proved his claim against

the defendant basing on Exs.A.1 to A.7. Though it is contended by the

defendant in his pleadings that he has filed I.P.No.2/2014 before this

Court and the present suit has to be decided subject to the result of the

said I.P., he did not choose to take any steps for disposal of I.P., which

was filed in the year 2014. Mere filing of I.P. by the defendant does not

absolve him from his liability to repay the due amounts to the

plaintiff/PW.1. The said fact is matter of concern in execution

proceedings. As seen from the record, I.P. No.2/2014, is still at the stage

of filing of process for the respondents Nos.7 to 17 which itself shows that

the defendant herein who has filed the said I.P. is not interested in getting

disposal of that case and basing on it, he wants to prolong the suit

proceedings herein. As per the evidence of PW.1, the defendant is

owning a house bearing No.5-77 and in respect of the same he has filed

Ex.A.8 which is the ownership certificate dt: 18.02.2014 issued by the

Panchayath Secretary, Noothankal. The defendant in his pleadings did

not deny the same. Moreover, the said house is also shown as his

immovable property in I.P.No.2/2014 and the plaintiff/PW.1 is shown as

one of the respondents. Thus, even according to defendant, the

plaintiff/PW.1 is one of his creditors. Having failed to discharge his plea of

forgery, he cannot escape from his liability. Moreover the said house of

defendant was already attached by this Court in IA No.148/2014 filed

under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C., Hence, by considering the fact that the

plaintiff/PW.1 has already proved his case against the defendant, he is

 8

entitled for recovery of the suit amount from him. Accordingly, issue No.5

is answered in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendant.

15. ISSUE No.6 : In the result, the suit is decreed with costs
by directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,85,157/- with interest at
the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit to till the date
of decree and subsequent interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum
on the principal amounts (Rs.2,40,000+Rs.47,000) i.e., Rs.2,87,000/-
from the date of decree to till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court, on this the 27th day of June, 2018.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

SURYAPET.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff side: For Defendant side:

Pw.1: Khammampati Saidulu -NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

Ex.A.1 … Original promissory note dt: 8.9.2012 executed by

defendant in favour of the PW.1 for Rs.20,000/-

Ex.A.2…. Original promissory note dt: 8.9.2012 executed by

defendant in favour of the PW.1 for Rs.1,00,000/-

Ex.A.3…. Original Promissory note dt: 12.11.2012 executed by

defendant in favour of the PW.1 for Rs.47,000/-.

Ex.A.4…. Receipt dt: 8.9.2012 executed by the defendant in

favour of PW.1 in respect of the transaction under
Ex.A.1 (duly impounded)

Ex.A.5 … Receipt dt: 12.11.2012 executed by the defendant in

favour of PW.1 in respect of the transaction under
Ex.A.2 (duly impounded)

Ex.A.6 … Receipt dt: 08.09.2012 executed by the defendant in

favour of PW.1 in respect of the transaction under
Ex.A.3 (duly impounded)

Ex.A.7 … Bond dt: 8.9.2012 executed by the defendant in favour

of Pw.1 (duly impounded)

Ex.A.8 … Ownership certificate dt: 18.02.2014 issued by

Panchayath Secretary, Noothankal.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT: -NONE-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

9

SURYAPET.