The High Court · 2025

place in the house of the plaintiff. The defendant did not repay the amount in spite of the request made by the plaintifl Plaintiff came to know that the defendant is making efforts to alienate the house property in order to evade the payment, in view of the urgency could not issue the legal notice and directly hled the suit' The defendant is liable to pay the suit amounts due under the pro-note as follows: a b Prl. amount under Pronote dated: 09.11.2012 Interest Rs. 1.5O PS Per month per hundred i.e., l8%o per annum from 09.I1.2O12 to 21.01.2013 i.e., 2 months 12d Rs.9,50,0O0-00 Rs.34,200-00 Rs.9,84,20O-00 and prayed to decree the suit WRITTEN STATEMENT:

5. Defendant denied the executi.on of promissory note dated Og.ll.2}72 and further contended that the signatures on the promissory note and receipt are forged and fabricated, they do nol belong to him and the defendant being literate if he has really 3120 BR\,IR,.J AS No.2g2 20 l.) taken the amoLrnt he rvould have scribe the promissorv note and the receipt but rh. plaintiff in co[usion with his fricncs has filred up the columns in the printed proforma of the promissrrr! note and receipt. Plaintiff has no license to lend the moner and has no hnancial capacity, prayed to dismiss the suit. 6 The trial (lou rt framed the following Issues:

1. Whetht:r rhe suit pro-note is truly valid and binding on the defe nrlant?

2. Whethcr the plaintiff is entitled for suit amor.rnt as prayed fo r?

3. To what rr: Iicf? 7 . Plaintilf has amended the plaint and as per r he orders in I.A.No. 109 of 20 15, dated 04. I 1.2015. As per the amended plaint the date of suit prcmissory note is 11.O9.2O12 and the claim is to pass a decree for Rs.iO, ll,75O/- $,ith interest @ lg9i, per annum on the above said amount and the calculation made b.i the plaintiff is as under: a) b) amount undcr pronote Prl dated: 11.O9.2O72 Interesl (r, Rs. 1.50 ps per month per l-rundred i.e. , 18,,/o per annum from I 1.09.20 12 Lo 21.O1.2a l3 i.e., 4 months 10 da s Rs.9,50,0()O-OO Rs.61 ,7,10-0O Rs. 10, 1 1,7r)0-00 4120 BRMR,J As No 292 20l9 \ -*J - 1 l

8. Defendant has not filed additional written statement to the amended plaint

9. The learned Trial Court has recasted the issues as under 1 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for? To whar relieP

10. Plaintiff is examined as PW. 1 and also examined PW.2- K.Thirupathi, PW.3-A.Shankaraiah, PW.4-P.Kaladhar Rao and PW.5 A.Bhadraiah, got marked Exs.Al to A8 Defendant is examined as DW. 1 and got marked Exs.B 1 to E}3.

11. The learned Trial Court after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties has decreed the suit directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.10,1 l,750l- with interest @ 12% per annum from thc date of filing the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6oh per annum titl the date of reahzation which shall be calculated on principle amount of Rs.9,5O,O0O/-.

12. 1 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is bad in law and perverse and did not appreciate the evidence let in by the appellant-defendant in proper perspective, simply relied on the evidence of the respondent- plain tiff and decreed the suit. Appellant-defendant has deniecl the borros'ing of an amount and executing promissoy note sl20 tsRMR,J AS No.292 2019 and receipt dated 09.ll.2012 in favour of the respor: dent-plaintiff. The respondent- plain tiff has failed to take steps for ccrmparison of the signatures r>f the appeilant-defendant to an exper: in order to prove the pro-note and that the appellant-defendarrt specihcally contended that the respondent-plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount and did not show the amount covered under Ex.A 1-pronote ir-r tl-re Income Tax returns.

12.2 Appellant delendant has specifically contenceC that the respondent-plair-rtiff is due an amount of Rs.5,00,00C /- to him for which a cheque r.r,as issued in his favour and when the appellant- defendant demanded to rcpay the said amount then the respondent-plaintiff manufactured the document and hled the suit.

12.3 The learned Judge ought to have seen that tix) appeliant- defendant is not residing in .Jammikunta and he is residing in Karimnagar from June, 2011 at the time of alleged transaction. As per the pleadings ol the respondent-ptaintiff, the tran,saclion has taken place at Jammikunta and the appellant has poinled out that there are several discrepancies in the evidence 1et in by the respondent-plain tiff. The hndings given by the learred Judge in Para No.14 that the appellant had not taken any steps; with regard to Ex.A1 by filing ilnv case against the re spondent- p ltrin tiff, they are unsustainable in law. 6120 BRMR,J AS.No 2q2 2019

12.4 The learned Judge in a casual manner proceeded with the evidence on record and decreed the suit, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and decree.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has proved the execution of Ex.Al by examining the scribe and witnesses i.e., PWs.2 to 5 and discharged the initial burden placed on him. It is the defendant who has to discharge his burden as he has taken the defense of forgery and the learned Trial Court has propcrly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly decreed the suit as prayed for, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the APPeal.

14. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material

15. Now the point for consideration is: whether the impugned judgment passed in OS,No.6 of 2O13 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad, dated 03.10.2018 suffers from any perversity or illegalify, if so, does it requires interference of this Court?

16. The original plaint shows that the date of promissory note rs

09.11.2012 and the claim was to pass a decree for Rs'9,84,2O0/- against the person and property of the defendant with interest @ 18%o per annum. Plaint got amended uide I.A.No. 109 of 2015,dated '1 -- -/ BRMR,J AS.No.292.2019

04.11.2015 \,herein the date of promissory note shown is lL.O9.2O\2 and the claim is ro pass a decree for Rs.10,1l/5O/_ in favour of the plaintiff and against the person and :roperty of the defendant with interest @ 18% per annum rrom the date of suit t l the date of realization.

17.1 The evidence of the plaintiff is in the lines o[ the amended plaint and he deposed that Ex.A 1 transaction has tzLken place in his house. In his cross-examination he statecl l.hat he has subscribed chit of Rs. 10,00,000/ urith the defendant and monthly installment is Rs.40,000/- per month for a periocl of 2.5 months and he has mentioned in Ex.Bl that he joined in the said chit on 03.10.2010, paid an amount of Rs.6,g0,910/_. As,rn the date of suit promissory note - Ex.Al, the delendant is due to pa),the chit amount to him as the chit was still running and he ivas supposed to pay Rs.8,O0,O00/-, he has not sho,"r.n the suit pr,rrnissory note amounL in the Income Tax returns. In his business, every transaction used to be done through Bank r:heques and lransactions, he is nol doing any private Finance business and he is not a money lender and he lr.ill not lend mone1. rl an), one on interest. Defendant requested him to give the suit prornissory note amount just one day prior to Ex.Al and on the next day he has arranged the amount. On the date of Ex.A 1 , he brought 8120 BRMR,J AS.No.292 2019 i j Rs.2,00,OOO/ to Rs.3,0O,O0O/ from State Bank of Hyderabad, Jammikunta Branch and remaining amount was with him. Daily he will bring monel, from the Banks for his business. transactions and he did not bring money from the Bank for the purpose of giving to the defendant, he brought the money from different Banks on the date of execution of Ex.A1 - promissory note. Generally, he will bring money of Rs.5,O0,000/- to Rs. 1O,00,OO0/- per day from different Banks and he has mentioned in the plaint that the defendant approached him on the date of transaction (ll.O9.2Ol2) and borrowed the amounl under trx.Al. One of the attestor to Ex.A1 by name Badraiah (PW.5) is a resident of Sayampet village of Jammikunta Mandal and Kaladhar (PW.a) is resident of Korapalli Village of Jammikunta Mandal, K.Thirupathi (PW.2) is the resident of SRSP Quarlers at Jammikunta, A.Shankaraiah (PW.3) is the native of Madaka Viliage of Odela Mandal but he is residing in a rented house beside his house at Jammikunta and that Ex.A1 was not scribed by the defendant.

17.2. PW.1 denied the suggestion that since no suit transaction has not taken place between him and the defendant, as such he did not file the relevant Bank statement to prove the same, he also denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 is a forged document.a{1{that he \ I W 9120 BRMR,J AS.No.292 2019 has to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ to the delendant under Ex-82

18. i. PW.2 deposed that plaintiff is a business rr.an in Adthi Commission Merchant in grain market at Jarr.nrikunta, the defendant is also residence of the same Tou'n, he is als;o a business man and they are acquainted with each otl- er, on such acquaintance the defendant approached the plaintiff on

11.O9.2O12, borrowed an amount of Rs.9,50,OO0/- fcr his business purpose at the house of the plaintiff at Jamm:kunta in his presence and in the presence of P- Kaladhar Rao (PW.4), A.Bhaclraiah (PW 5), A.Shankaraiah (PW.3). The del'endant after receipt of the above said amount has executed promiss,ory note and receipt as a coilateral security in favour of the plainti:T on the above said date and undertook to pay interest Al. 1.5O ps per hundred t.e., l8%o p.a. The pronote [Ex.A1) u,as scribecl bv li. Shankaraiah (PW.3) and he is one of the attestor to the said docurn,:nt. Plaintiff has informed him that defendant did not pay the pronote amount despite several demands.

18.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he clo not know whether on 09.11.2011, defendant and his rvife ivithdrawn as partners in Balaji Cotton Industries and left JammLk.unta Village and staying at Karimnagar, so also he do not kno.r' the presenL Y= I t0/20 BRMR,J AS. No.292-2019 address of the defendant. A.Shankaraiah (PW'3) is doing Commission Agent business, he do not know his address, his house is situated about 02 kilometcrs from the house of plaintiff' On the date of Ex.A 1 , plaintiff r.t'as residing at old house near Girls High School at Jammikunta. The suit transaction has taken place at the shop of plaintiff at Jammikunta, when he reached the said shop, the plaintiff and defendant, A Shankaraiah (PW 3), P.Kaladhar (PW.4), Bhadraiah (PW 5) u'ere present. Shop of PW. 1 is adjacent to other shops but he cannot say the full particulars' Shop of PW. I containing ln'o or three rooms but he never went inside and the suit pronote ',r'as scribed by A.Shankaraiah (PW'3) by that time, he reached thc shop ot PW 1, defendant signed on Ex.Al after taking the amount thereafter he signed as witness. Plaintiff took money from almarah-wardrobe in his shop and gave the same to the defendant. He do not know from where the plaintiff has brought the amount. De[endant has signed in English language in Ex.A1, he do not knorr,' the educational qualilications of the defendant, to his knowledge defendanL can read and write and capable of writing promissory note. He went lo the shop of plaintiff at about 12. 15 P.M. on the date of transaction and he do not know whether PW. 1 and PW.3 are close friends and he signed on promissory note and receipt, PW.3 did not sign on the receipt. PW.2 denied the suggestion that there are no talkinq/ terms 1t170 I] R\]R,J \S No.292 2019 between the plaintiff and the defendant as there ,.\'3re disputes between them rvith regard to chit amount and thzrr the dcfcndant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and th.' suir pronote was crealed to grab the money from the defendant ar rc hc rs giving falSe evidence.

19.1. PW.3 is the scribe of Ex.Al, he deposed thar plair-rriff and defendant are accluainted with each other and b:rsing on such acquaintance, deft:ndant approached the plaintiff orr 1 1.09.2012, borror,r'ed an amoLlnt of Rs.9,5O,00O I - for his businr \ri l)urposc at the house of the plaintiff at Jammikunta in his pres('r r( r: ernd in thc prescnce of P.K.rladhar (PW.4), Bhadraiah (PW.5) ancl Ii.Thrruparhi (PW 2) The defendant having received the amounr l.ras exccuted Ex.A1-promissory note on 11.09.2O12 and undcr-l )ok ro pay interest (@ Rs. 1.50 ps. per hundred i.e., lSVo p()r arlnum and the delendant has brought him to the house of thc pleri r ifl to scribe Ex.Al-pronote and he scribed the same.

19.2. ln his cross-examination, he stated chat he is r unr-ring Adthi shop of Vayuputra Traders at Jammikunta for the pir sl 25 ycars and the plaintiff is also in the same business and :Lrat they are having financial transactions for the past 25 years. Dcfendant used to do business in Balaji Cotton Industries and hc rs one of the partner, to his knowledge plaintiff used to supply co r:rn to Balaji t2120 BRMR,J AS No.292 2019 \] Cotton Industries and Balaji Cotron Industries is closed in the year 2Oll-72. Balaji Cotron IndusLrie s is a big mill and it , /as liquidated due to loss, several farmers picked up quarrel with the partners to pay their dues. Defendant used to run private chit business and he do not know whether the plaintiff is subscriber of a chit or not. So also he do not know whether plaintiff has hled criminal case against the defendant uid.e Crime No. 146 of 2013 or not. On the date of Ex.Al, ar the request of defendant he went to the shop of plaintiff at 1 l.O0 A.M. When he reached there, one Kaladhar (PW.4), Bhadraiah (pw.s) and Thiruparhi (pW.2) were present and the plaintiff was having promissory note and revenue stamps at his shop and defendant can u.rite the promissory note, he do not know the date on which the defendant has requested the plaintiff for hand loan and he scribed trx.A1. Whenever a financial transaction takes place the same will be shown in Income Tax Returns. Plaintiff is the proprietor of Manikanta Adthi Commission Merchant and in Ex.Al they have menrioned as Rs.1.5O ps interest per month. Plaintiff is not having any money lending license and the defendant agreed to repay the loan amount after three or four months. PW.3 denied the suggestion that he is no[ the scribe of Ex.A 1 and also denied the suggestion that himself and other wltnesses coiluded with the plaintiff, created trx.Al and the s "/ e is forged and fabricated document. / -f t3120 tJ RI,I R..J AS No.292 20 i9 2O.1. The evidence of PW.4 is the same with that of the evidence of PW.2, he further deposed that on the request of the defendant he K.Thirupathi (PW.2), A.Bhadraiah (PW.5) have s,gned as a rvitnesses on the promissory note as well as on the rct(.ip[.

20.2. ln his cross-examination, he stated that he is a native of Venkateshwarlapalli H/o. Korapalli Village of Jammi krrnta Mandal and the distance between his village and Jarimikur-rt.r is 6 kilometers and PW- 1 belongs to his caste, he is doing Adthi business in the name of Manikanta Adthi busine ss and the defendant used to do business in Balaji Cotton Indus:ries and he is one of the partner, to his knowledge he used to supl)ly cotton to Balaji Cotton Industries and the same is closed in thr: year 2013. On the date of Ex.A1, he went to the shop of the plarntiff at about 1 1.O0 A.M. along with A.Bhadraiah (PW.5) for takirLg money o[ agricultural produce, at that time plaintiff alone was present in the shop and after sometime, PWs.2 and 3 came the rc Plaintiff and A.Bhadraiah belongs to Shayampet Village. A.Bhalraiah runs ration shop, himself, A.Bhadraiah met each other nr:a.r a tea stall '*,hich is 100 yards away from the shop of the plaintiff. A.Bhadraiah also came to the shop of the plaintifl for taking amount of hls agricultural produce. Except the abovr: rsaid persons and himself no other person were present in the shop of the 14120 BRMR,J AS No.292 2019 - \F--4 \ \ plaintiff at the time of suit transaction. Defendant is a Graduate and he can write the promissory note and PW.3 is the scribe of Ex.A 1 . PW.4 has denied the suggestion that defendant never obtained loan from the plaintiff nor executed promissory note in his favour ald he left Jammikunta after the business is closed and that the defendant never requested him PWs.2,3 and 5 to sign in the promissory note and at the request of the plaintiff, they signed on Ex.A1, Ex.A1 is a forged document.

21. The evidence of PW.S is same with that of the evidence of PW4. In his cross-examination he stated that he is running a ration shop in Shayampet Village for the pasr 20 years till date. Every month from l"t to 1Sfr, the Government u,ill give ration to the shop for distribution. On 11.O9.2O12 also ration w,as supplied to the consumers from his shop. Himself and PW.4 together went to the shop of PW. I and they met near City Cable shop which is about 6 yards away from the shop of the plaintiff. On the date of Ex.A 1, he went to the shop of the plaintiff for taking money of agricuiture produce of cotton. He sold 5 quintals of cotton in the month of July, 2072 through the Adthi Commission shop of plaintiff for Rs.4,500/- per quintal. Plaintiff made entry for the amount paid to him in his record book. When he reached the shop of PW. t he was alone present inside the shop and on eTrlier 15120 BRMR,.] AS. No 292 2019 occasion also he signed as witness to the promissor/ note. On the date of transaction plaintiff has given his money. 1{Lmself, PWs.2 to 4 and defendant went to the shop of the plaintiff at the same time. He do not remember exactly after how mu<:LL time of the trdnsaction they returned back from the shop of I)W. 1 and he knows the defendant, he do not know whether any chit transaction has taken place betu,een the plaintiff and the defenCant. It is true in his presence, defendant never requested the plzLintiff to give hand loan mentioned under Ex.A1. Defendant is a Graduate, to his knowledge he can read and write and he can rlso rvrite the promissory note. PW.3 is the scribe of Ex.A1. PV/.S denied the suggestion that plaintiff, himself and PWs.1 to 4 collurled with each other created Ex.A1 and that the plaintiff has promist:d him to pay Rs.5O,00O/- if he succeeds in the suit. He alsc denied the suggestion that trx.A1 is a forged document.

22. The evidence of DW.1 is the replica of his writtrrn statement. In his cross-examination he stated that plaintiff is working as Adthi Commissron Merchant and he used to purchase cotton from him for Balaji Cotton lndustries and he knows the plaintiff since the date of running the said Cotton Industries. He has knowledge that income and expenditure and loans given and .:aken will be shorvn in the Income Tax Assessment. While retiring from Balaji 'l ,l I]RMR..] 1S Io.292 20t9 Industries the remaining partners of the Firm have given him an amount of Rs.20 Lakhs as goodwill and he left Jammikunta to Karimnagar on 20.O9.2011 after retiring from Balaji Industries and he cannot say the House number of the Karimnagar House. Prior to fi1ing the present case there were disputes between him and the plaintiff and they had cordial relationship while doing Cotton Business. He is facing 5 cheating cases at Jammikunta police station and the addresses mentioned in Exs.A4 and A5 belongs to .Iammikunta. One M.Thirupathi Reddy has filed cheating case against him under Sections 42O ar,d 506 of IPC of PS Jammikunta, the same is registered as CC No.413 by 2015 on the filc of II Additional JFCM Huzurabad and the plaintiff has also filed similar case against him which is pending in the same Court. Ex.B2- cheque is issued by the plaintiff to Balaji Cotton Industries and not in his personal capacity and he has not filed any case against the plaintiff in respect of Ex.B2 and he never saw PW.4 at Jammikunta u,hile doing business, he do not know PW.5. DW. I denied the suggestion that on ll.O9.2Ol2, he went to the house cum shop of the plaintiff and obtained Rs.9,50,00O/- as hand loan in presence of the witnesses and executed promissory note, and he himself has brought PW.3 to scribe Ex.A1 pro-note and made other witnesses to sign on the suit promissory note and he is giving lalse evidpce. /l - 17120 BRMR,J AS.No.292 2019

23. A suggestion is put to PW. 1 that the defendanr and his wife retired from Balaji Cotton Industries on 09.1i.2O1 1 and shifted to Karimnagar and lhat the defendant left Jammikunta in the year 20 1 1. Ex.A4 is the suit summon and Ex.AS is rhe Notice rn IA.No.37 of 2013 (under Order 38 Rule 5) of CPC in the suit. Exs.A4 and A5 goes to show that the summons wer( rlerved on the defendant at .Ia mmikunta address only. (The Tria Court in the judgment uide OS.No.6 of 2O13 has u.rongly menti,rrled Ex.A4 as the original ner.v pattadar pass book of plaintiff uide k tata No. 1225 and Ex.A5 as original old pattadar pass book uidt, patta No.821 instead of summons in OS.No.6 of 2013 (Ex.A4); Nc,t,ce in IA.No.6 of 2013 in OS.Nrr.6 of 2013 (Ex.As) in the Appenrlix of Exhibits Marked).

24. It is the contention of the defendant that the lrlaintiff has no capacity to pay the suit amount (Rs.9,5O,000/ -). L)r:s.A6, A7, Aa are the Mee Seva 1-B Namunas dated 21.08.201t; which shows that the plaintifl is having lands and he is the pattec ar for different extents. Defendant has admitted in his cross-exami;tation that the plaintiff is doing Adthi business and the evidence cf PWs.2 to 5 goes to sho"r, that the plaintrff has capacity to lend tlLc amount.

25. Ex.B1 is the copy of FIR in Crime No.146 ot'2O13 dated I9.05.20 13 of PS Jammikunta, where under the ,t()mplainant is t8120 RRMR,.I .{S.)io.292 20 t9 the plaintiff, and the accused is the defendant and the crime is .l registered for the offences under Sections 420, 506 o[ IPC and Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The tenor of the complaint. goes to show that the delendant made believed the plaintifl that he is running chit r.r.orth Rs. 10 Lakhs, on his belief the plaintiff has joined in the chit and after paying several installments of Rs.6,8O,9 10 / - tLle plaintiff asked the defendant to auction the chit. But the defendant adamantly refused and did not conduct the auction thereby cheated the plaintiff. When the plaintiff asked the defendant for his money, he threatened with dire consequences. PW. t has admitted that he has issued Ex.B2-cheque for Rs.5 Lakhs in favour of Balaj i Cotton lndustries but not to the defendant.

26. Ex. B2-cheque is issued by the plaintiff in favour of Balaji Cotton Industries, but not in favour of the defendant. Ex.B3 is the Form A of Register of Firms of M/s.Balaji Cotton Industries, Jammikunta, dated 18.05.2009 which goes to show that the defendant and 10 others have started M/s.Balaji Cotton Industries on 06.04.20O9 and he ceased to be a partner of the firm from

09. I 1.20 I l The frrm is registered on 18.05.2009. 27 . It is the contention of the defendant that he is educated and if really he has borrowed the amount covered under Ex.A I , definitely he would have scribed the same, the defense taken by .,../ 19120 t]R \1R,J r\S.i'Io.292 2019 him is that Ex.AI is a forged document created by the plaintiff in collusion with PWs.2 to 5. 28. Defendant counsel has pointed out frorn the cross- that Pw. 1 admitted the,i defendant examination o[ Pw. I approached him one day prior to Ex.A 1 lor h lrrd loan and thereafter the amount r,r'as given on 11.09.2012. Though there are minor discrepant:ies pointed out from the cross-e<zrminations of PWs.l to 5, but on careful scrutinv of the evidence rlclduced by the parties goes to show that the ciefendant approacht:d the plarntiff for hand loan and the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- to the defendant arrd thereafter the defendant has e;<r:cuted Ex.A 1- promissory note

29. Plaintiff has discharged his initial burden bl' t:xamining the scribe and the attestation to Ex.A 1 (i.e., PW2 to I'>WS) All the witnesses in one tenor stated that the defendant aiter receipt of Rs.9,50,O00/- under Ex.Al, executed a promissorr note in the presence of the u'itnesses and the scribe.

30. The burdcn is shifted on the defendant to pro'.'€r thtrt Ex.A I is a forged document. No evidence is adduced by tl Le defendant to show that Ex.Al is a forged and fabricated documt nt. In absence of any evidence liom the defendant's side, it canno[ be said that t I Ex.A 1 is a labricate d document whe n thc plaintiff has discharged his initial burden by examining the scribe and the witnesses. 3I. The learncd trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and gave cogent reasons in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff in Para Nos.1 I to 14. The learned trial Court has also observed in the judgment [hat there are minor discrepancies in the evidence of PWs.I to 5 but those discrepancies are minor in nature. Appellant-defendant has not made out any case to set aside the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. This Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly decreed the suit as prayed for. There are no merits in the Appeal. The Appeal deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.

32. Appeal is dismissed withou[ costs. Interim Orders if any, stands vacated. Miscellaneous applilation/ s stands closed. SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civrl Judge, Huzurabad (With Records if any) 2 One CC to SRI V RAV| I RAo Advocate [.PUC] 3. one cc to sRr M *o, ,t'^o* 4 Two cD copies 'loHAN REDDY Advocate IOPUC] u), E\l d I .: i l,1l !1.' )ir i-t t b :::it*'-!I c. \..: 1 ), (:\tr ':ifl ?.ffi .':.?t -t)' :'.tlli)i,' ? ' ::::- HIGH COURT DATED:1411012025 JUDGMENT AS.No.292 ot 2019 DISMISSING THE APPEAL f,\, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO APPEAL SU lT NO: 292 OF 20'19 Between: Ravikantt Srikanth, S/o Jagannatham, aged about 41 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No. 1O-1-203t1, Mankammathota, Karimnagar ( wrongly mentioned in the suit as R/o H No. 2-9-4419, Jammikunta village and mandal, Karimnagar District APPELLANT AND Lingampally Lrnga Rao, S/o Rajeshwar Rao, aged 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o Jammikunta village and Mandal, Karimnagar District. RESPONDENT Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the learned senior civil Judge at Huzurabad dated 3-10-2018 in os No. 06 0f 2013 dated 03-10-2018 in o.s.No.06 0f 2013. ORDER This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the peiition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sfl M. Ram IVIohan Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent' That this Court doth Order and Decree as follows That this appeal is be hereby dismissed confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court.

2. That there shall be no as to costs To

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad 2. Two CD Copies - A.V.S. PRASAD P rY Re(,llsrRAA' HIGH COURT DATED:1411012025 DECREE AS.No.292 of 2019 DISMISSING THE APPEAL J,