O,OOO/- towards lanchanam to v. Raghavarao. Raghavarao stopl)ed doing any job and was addicted t.o trad vices lik

of the appellant-defendant with one Sagarapu Srinivasa Rao, who died later ar.d he incurred huge expenses. P.Appa Rao has constructed a house in the name of the appellant-defendant by obtaining loarr, he died without repaying the same. The appellant- defendant approached the respondent-plaintiff at Hvderabad in the month of Apr-il, 2008 along with one Veera Su,amy, resident of Chillangi, Kirtampudi Mandal, East Godavari District for loan to clear her fathe,r,s debt. Respondent_plaintiff has arranged a sum of Rs.6,SO,OOO,r- to the appellant_defendant and shc executed a pro- 1 \ BRMR,J CCCA.No.2A0 2019 t note to that effect on 30-04-2009 agreeing to pay the principal amount with interest @ l2Yo per annum and she executed the pro-note in the presence of Y.Veera Swamy and one T.L.N.Suresh, subsequently, she did not choose to repay the interest are principal in spite of the demands made by the respondent-plainliff and filed the suit-

3. Appellant-defendant filed her written statement denying the plaint averments contending that she do not know the respondent- plaintiff, never saw him at any point of time, so also she do not know the attestors and scribe. After the death ofher husband with the death benehts, she purchased a site and constructed a house taking loan from State Bank of India, Treasury Branch, Kakinada and the cause of action is created, invented for the purpose of the suit and the pro-note is rank forgery, the signatures appearing on the pro-note does not beiongs to her. Attestors are the henchman of the respondent-plaintiff and the Courl has no jurisdiction to try the suit, moreover, the suit is also barred by limitation. Her husband S.Srinivasa Rao is a Military employee and he died in the year 2OO4, she being the wife received Rs.8,O0,0O0/- towards death benefits and the loan taken by her from the Bank is Rs.6,5O,OO0/-. P.Nageswara Rao is her junior paternal uncle, he knows one V.Raghavarao son of PentalT/a, with that acquaintance, she was given in marriage to him on 17'05.2O09 in Annavaram ,'/ ,/ 3lts I]RMR.I CCCA.No 280 20l9 Devastanam as F er Hindu rites, customs and traditions. At the time of marriage, her family members gave Rs.6,OO,0OO/- zrs dowry and Rs.5O,OOO/- towards lanchanam to V. Raghavarao. Raghavarao stopl)ed doing any job and was addicted t.o trad vices like drinking and spent all his earnings besides salary of the appellant-defend:lnt and he used to abuse her in filthy language. Disputes arose between her and P.Nageswara Rao with regard to the performanc,: of marriage of her sister. At ttrat time, Raghavarao has supported Nageswara Rao. Nageswara Rao has demanded the a ppellant-defendant to bring dowry of Rs.5,00,O00/- as she refused to do so, she has been harassed by her husband Raghavarao. P. Nageswara Rao is an Advocate Clerk. in collusion with Y.Veera S',vamy who is also an Advocate Clerk, resident of Chillangi Villag:, hatched a plan to cheat her and cau-se mental agony, they created fabricated pro-note in the name of the plaintiff and Iiled false s,uit. Appellant-defendant has filed private complaint against Nagesu.ara Rao wherein he was convicted. 4 The Trial Court has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2) Whetl-rer this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? claim ) 3) Whettrer the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit 4) To what reliep BRMR.J CCCA.No.28O 20l9

5. Respondent-Plaintiff is examined as PW. 1, got examined \ PW.2-Y.Veera Swamy and PW.3-V.V.Ganesh Babu and got marked Ex.A1-promissory note. Appellant-Defendant is examined as DW. 1 and got marked Exs.B I to 89.

6. The Trial Court after going through the evidence ied by the parties has decreed the suit for Rs.8,83,35O/ - (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty oniy) in favour of the respondent-plaintiff with subsequent interest @ 72o/o per annum from the date of hling the suit till the date of decree and with further interest @ 6oh per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. 7 .1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective, Ex.Al is created for the purpose of the suit in collusion with P.Nageswara Rao with that of Veera Swamy-PW.2 and failed to consider Exs.Bl to 89 and the judgment of the Trial Court is ex-facie illegal, perverse, unlawful and contrary to the principles of Evidence Act. The learned Judge ought to have seen and analysed the evidence that PW. I could not identify the appellant-defendant and it is highly suspicious to believe that he has lent an amount of Rs.6,50,OO0/- to an unknown person' PW.2-''14'leera Swamy is an Advocate Clerk and in collusion wit,h a"" s/15 i]RIlTR,J CCCA, \o.2uO_2019 P.Nageswara Rao, rvho is in inimical terms with the appe:llant- defendant have created Ex.Al. Appellant-defendant has never approached the re spondent-plaintiff at any point of tirne at Hyderabad and Exs..Bl to El9 reveals that during the said period, appellant-defendanr had funds and there are no debts to be repaid or there is no nec':ssity for her to borrow the amount frc,m the respondent-plaintif: to discharge the alleged debt incurred by her father. The Trial Court failed to consider the crucirll and important aspect. Ihe appellant-defendant has filed an app..ication to send the dispuced promissory note (Ex.Al) for comparision of hand-writing expert as it was a forged document but unfbrtunately, the Trial Court has dismissed the same, against which CRP has been hled before tlie High Court which is pending consideration, by ignoring the sam3, the learned Judge has disposed the matter decreeing the suit

7.2. The Trial Cr>urt ought to have seen that tlte signatures of the appellant-defenda.nt with that of the Ex.A 1 are different which is apparent on the lace of the record but failed to consicler the said aspect and given a finding that there is no differencr: in the signature on the promissory note-Ex.Al with that of tht: written statement. The Trial Court failed to notice the infirmitir:s in the evidence of PWr;.2 and 3. Mere production of Ex.A 1 is not t 6/1s BRMR J CCCA.No.28o 20 l9 sufficient to decree the suit and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and to prove Ex.Al they have examined two independent witnesses i.e., PWs.2 and 3. Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and rightly decreed the suit, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.

9. Heard learned counsel, perused the material.

10. Now the points for consideration in the appeal are: 1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 2) Whether the impugned order in OS. No.985 of 2Ol2 dated 06.03.2019 passed by VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad suffers from any illegality, pewersity, if so, does it requires any interference of this Court? Point Nos. I and 2:

11. Ex.Al is the promissory note dated 30.04.2009. Respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit on 27.04.2072 and it is numbered on 2O.06.2012. The suit is Iiled within three years of execution of pro-note, dated 30.O4.2O09 and this Court -feel9,4hat I 7 BRMR..J CC(:A.No.28O 2019 the slrit filecl brr tne respondent-piaintiff in OS.No.985 of 2012 is within limitation

12. Appellant's counsel has mainly relied on Exs.Bl to E}9 and contended that tlre appellant had no occasion to visit Hyderabad and borrow the arnount from the respondent-plaintiff.

13. Ex.B1 is the letter, dated 28.05.2OO4 addressed by Vashish Kumar Capt., Re(x)rd Officer for OIC to the Manager, State Bank of India, Treasury Branch, Kakinada pertaining to Ex-gra.tia from Central Governrrent of Late NK Sagarapu Srinivasa Rao, wherein an amount of t1s.5,00,0o0/- is given towards Ex-gratia to the appellant-de fendant. Copy of the same is also markerl to her. Ex.B2 is the Sar ings Pass-book issued by State Bank of India, the last transaction shown in the document is 30.06.2005. Ex.B3 is the certifred colry of registered sale deed, dated 28.06.2004 in favour of the appellant-defendant in respect of the propert5r purchased bv hcr uide land admeasuring 484 square ),ards. Ex.B4 is the housing loan pass-book issued by State Bank of India in favour of the appellant-defendant which shows the limit at Rs.6,54,0OO/-. Ex.BS is the letter addressed by Ranbir Singh, Lt Col., to the Mirnager, State Bank of India, Kakinada, Treasury Branch, East (iodavari District, dated 2Z.06.20O3 in respect of insurance benetit payable to the appellant-defendanr to a tune of \\ B/15 ARMR,J CCCA.No.28O. 2019 Rs.4,99,5i0/- on the death of Srinivas. Ex.86 is the pass-book of the appellant-defendant. Ex.B7 is the notarized housing plan and Ex.B8 is the certified copy of the complaint in CC.No. l4T of 2Ol4 fiied by the appellant-defendant against P.Nageswara Rao. Ex.B9 is the financial benehts receipt issued by Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, Visakhapatnam. It is to be noted here that Ex.Al is dated

30.04.2009 and the documents filed by the appellant-defendant are much prior to Ex.Al except Ex.B8 complaint which is filed in the year 2O 14.

14. It is the contention of the appellant's counsel that there is no occasion for the appeilant-defendant to obtain loan from the respondent-plaintiff in view of the fact that she got Ex-gratia amount after the death of her husband and she obtained the loan from the Bank for construction of the house.

15. The evidence of the respondent-plaintiff is the same with that of the plaint averments. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was working as a DTP operator from 1999 and presently (30.04.2009) he is drawing a saiary of Rs. 15,000/- per month, he possess landed properties at Chillangi in Kirlampudi Mandal of East Godavari, he has four houses which has to be divided between three brothers. A part from that he has Ac.01-00 gts of land and that he has no personal acquaintance with the father 9f x I I 911-5 tsRMR,.J (ICCA. No.280_20 l9 the appellant-defendant, he died in the year 2O05 ,rnd he saw him oniy once, hr) saw the appellant-defendant twice r.e., for the first time she carrre to him and borrowed the money and ftrr the second time when he went to demand repayment of money and that he gave thc money to the appellant-defendant for the lirst time when she came to him to meet him at Hyderabad. By that time, she is working in Siainik Welfare Office but do not know her designation and accordirrg to his knowledge, she had a house on the date of the suit transaction and he do not know the junior patr:rnal uncle of the appellar,t-defendant by name P.Nageswara Rao. One Ganesh Babu tras r;cribed Ex.A 1 , he is his maternal unc.e residing at Dilsuknagar and his name and address were not mentioned in the promissory note (Ex.A I ) and he do not know whether the appellant dr:fendant got deattr benefrts of her husband up to Rs.8,O0,00Ct/- so also he do not know that she has o'lrtained loan of Rs.6,54,00(t/ - from SBI, Kakinada for construction of the house and there is a slight variation between the signature of the appellant-defendant in her vakalathnama and Ex.,A.1 promissory note. Respondent-plaintiff further stated in his cross-examination that himself and Veera Swamy-PW.2 went to the house of the appellanr -defendant to demand repa;rment, he has nO dOCUmentS to show rha r he was possessing Rs.6,50,000 /_ on tht: date of EX.AI and he did not ask securilr from the appellant-defendant at the BRMR,.I CCCA.No.28O 20l9 time ol suit transaction. PW. I denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 is a fabricated document and not supported by consideration which is created in coliusion with Nageswara Rao and Y.Veera Swamy- PW.2.

16. The evidence of PW.2 is that father of the appellant- defendant by name Appa Rao is known to him, he incurred huge expenses for performing the marriage of appeiiant-defendant and also constructed residential house in her name and her father passed away without repaying the amount borrowed by him. Appellant-defendant has approached him to arrange loan to discharge the amounts borrowed by her father, in that context, himself and the appellant-defendant came to Hyderabad and approached the respondent-plaintiff and he requested to arrange loan to the appellant-defendant. Appellant-defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- from the respondent- plaintiff agreeing to pay interest @ Rs. 17o per month per hundred and she executed pro-note on 30.04.2009 in his presence and in the presence of one T.L.N'Suresh. In his cross-examination' he stated that he is working as Advocate Clerk in Prathipadu Court of East Godavari District since 10 years and P'Nageswara Rao is also working as an Advocate Clerk in the same place' he do not know rvhether the daughter of Nageswara Rao loved a boy and married him and the respondent-plaintiff is a friend to him for the past 20 (' ,/ 7 rr 115 BRMR..] CCCA.No.280 2019 years and that th( husband of the appellant-defendant died while serving in the lndian Military, he do not know whether she got a sum of Rs.8,00,0 )0/ - towards death benefits, so also he do not know whether appellant-defendant has obtained loan from SBI, Kakinada for con:rtruction of the house and that the suit pro- note was execute d in the house of V.V.Gaaesh Babu-PW.3 and it was written to the narration of the appeilant-defendant which is a printed form zrnri the columns were filled up, the place and date were also filled up in Ex.A I and the appellant-defenda:rt herse lf requested him frrr availing of loan, the appellant-defendant did not secure job by ttre date of filing the suit transaction and there is a recital in Ex.A L about the purpose of loan i.e., to meet family expenses and t,r discharge debt and that he has no talking terms with P.Nageswara Rao, and the taking of loan, r:oming to Hyderabad and execution of promissory note took place only once i.e., on the sarne date. pW.2 denied the sugge stion that due to disputes betwe,en the appelrant-defendant and her husband with that of P.Nages.u,ara Rao colluded with the respondent_plaintiff and foisted a false case against her and that the signature on Ex.Al does not belongs to the appellant_defendant, which is a forged one.

17. pw.g is the scril plaintiff is his brother-rr" " his house arong with Ex'Al' he deposed that respondent- l-law and the appellant-< Mr.y.veera s*.,,,y_pwJ ferrdant came to " *<ttttY-PW '2 reqttested \ I 'I I 12/1s BRMR,J CCCA.i\-o.280 2019 respondent-plaintiff to arrange loan for the amounts borrowed by her father and that the appellant_defe ndant executed pro_note on 30.04.2009 agreetng to repay the same.with rnterest @ I%o per hundred and she signed on pro-note in his presence and in the presence of y.Veera Swamy_pW.2 and Sri T.L.N.Suresh. In his cross- examination, he stated that he scribed Ex.Al at the request of the appeltant-defendant and the second attestor to Ex.A 1 is T.L.N. Suresh, who is the elder brother of the respondent_plaintiff, on the date of suit transaction, when he returned home respondent-plaintiff, suresh, appellant-defendant and pw.2 were present and they requested him to scribe promissory note, initially he denied to scribe the pro-note on the ground that he is the relative of the respondent-plaintiff as they forced him saying that there is no othei person to scribe the promissory note and he do not know 'a.hal has transcribed between the respondent-plaintiff and appellant-defendant before that and he also noted in Ex.Al that it has been scribed by him and also put the date. PW.3 denied the suggestion that he is giving false evidence and that Ex.A 1 is a fabricated document and that the plaintiff has no source of income at his native place so also in Hyderabad.

18. The bone of contention of the appellant-defendant is that Ex.A1 is a fabricated document and he filed an application to send Ex.A 1 to an Expert before the Trial Court which came to be ., i' ,/ - 11,'15 BRMR'J CCCA.N.2a0,2019 dismissed. Appellant has carried the matter before the High Court as there was no s;tay, the Trial Court has disposed of the suit on merits though P\V 1 (respondent-plaintiff) admitted in his cross- examination that there is siight variation in Ex'A1 with that of the written statement. Appellant's counsel has contended during the course of argumonts that the signatures on Ex'Al with that of the written statemerlt differs' Ex'Al is dated 30'O4'2o09 and the writtenstatem.]ntfiledbytheappellant-defendantison 06.ll.2Ol2. Though PW. 1 (respondent-plaintiff) admitted that there is slight variation but the attester and the scribe to Ex'A 1 have stated tl.at the appellant-defendant after receipt of the amount of R';.6,50,00O/ - from the respondent-plaintiff has executed prom issory note in their presence. Though PW.2 and PW.3 were crc,ss-examined, no incriminating materiaL could be elicited from them. The respondent-plaintiff has disc harged his burden by exa mining PW.2 and PW.3 that Ex.Ai is lbllowed by consideration.

19. Appellan t-defendant has taken a defense in the written statement thar. promissory note, dated 3O.O4.2OO9 (E>:.A1) is not followed by' any consideration. Appellant-defenclan I has not adduced any evidence to show that Ex.Al iS nC consideration. As stated supra, in tr,. p..".airj'r::.J:r^.r# t4/ t5 BRMR..] CCCA.No.28O,2O 19 the documents flled by the appellant-defendant do not help her case 1n any manner. \

20. Appellant-defendant has taken a defense in the written statement that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Trial Court has answered the same in paragraph No.15 of its judgment and relied on Section 2O (c) of CPC where every suit shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the cause of action in whoie or in part arises- The Trial Court came to a conclusion that the cause of action arose in Hyderabad where the transaction took place thereby, the Court tried the suit that it has jurisdiction to entertain the same and negative the contention of the appellant-defendant which is on correct lines.

21. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case by taking into consideration the evidence adduced thereon and rightlydecreedthesuitoftherespondent-plaintiff.TheTrialCourt has also answered that the private complaint lodged by the appellant-defendant under Ex'88 is nothing to do with the case'

22. Appellant has not made out any case to set aside the impugned order passed in OS'No-985 of 2012, dated 06'03'2O 19' there are no merits in the Appeal, deserves no consideration' and the sa;:re is liable to be dismissed. ./ - 15/1s BRMR,J Cl C CA.llo.280-2019

23. In the resrtlt, CCCA.No.28O of 2O 19 is dismissed without costs. Interim o -ders if any stands vacated, misc<:llaneous petition / petition s; stands closed. sd/- //TRUE COPY' MURTHY GISTRAR OFFICER To,

1. The Vll Senior Oivil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRI ,3 VASANTHA RAYUDU, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI vl V SURESH, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ADK&am

4. i .1'------ HIGH COURT DATED:2210812025 STATE t)\ 1 f, t) 1t$$ lffi c) -]:- -t * Qesp,ri., JUDGMENT+I)ECREE CCCA.No.280 of 2019 2 DRAFTS DISMISSING THE CCCA WITHOUT COSTS 1K l0 1? F- | 34481r IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO Clry CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 280 OF 2019 Between: Sagarapu Jyothi Padma, Wo Late Srinivasa Rao, D/o Palepu Apparao, aged about 32 years, Ryo D.No.10-27, Shivaji Theatre Road, lndrapalem, Kakinada - 06, East Godavari District. ...AppellanUDefendant AND T.V.V. Siva Ratna Prasad, S/o Laxamana Rao, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee (DTP Operator), Rl/o Flat No.204, Sneha Prakash Enclave, 16-2-7521 12311 I 3-6, Triveni Nagar, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad. ...RespondenUPlaintiff Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 06.03.2019 made in O.S.No.9B5 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Vll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. 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 Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI G VASANTHA RAYUDU, Advocate for the Appellant and of SRI M V SURESH. Advocate forthe Respondent. 7 This Courl doth Order and Decree as follows: '1 . That the CCCA tre and hereby is dismissed; 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. .t:>. sd/- K. ITAMA MURTHY .ry REGIS //TRUE COPY// ON OFFICER To, '1 . The Vll Senior tlivil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad 2. Two CD Copies ADK,&am IM,,Y HIGH COURT DATED:2210812025 DECREE CCCA.No.280 of 2019 DISMISSINC; THE CCCA WITHOUT C:OSTS 1 1n \ro