THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

JUDGMENT

1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.985 of 2012, dated 06.03.2019 by the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts at

Hyderabad.

2. Respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit against the appellant- defendant contending that Late P.Appa Rao is the father of the appellant-defendant and he is resident of Kakinada, East Godavari District. Respondent-plaintiff is also the resident of the same District and in the year 1999, he shifted to Hyderabad for the purpose of employment. Late P.Appa Rao performed the marriage of the appellant-defendant with one Sagarapu Srinivasa Rao, who died later and he incurred huge expenses. P.Appa Rao has constructed a house in the name of the appellant-defendant by obtaining loan, he died without repaying the same. The appellant- defendant approached the respondent-plaintiff at Hyderabad in the month of April, 2008 along with one Veera Swamy, resident of Chillangi, Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari District for loan to clear her father’s debt. Respondent-plaintiff has arranged a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- to the appellant-defendant and she executed a pro-

note to that effect on 30-04-2009 agreeing to pay the principal amount with interest @ 12% 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-plaintiff 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 of her husband with the death benefits, 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 belongs to her. Attestors are the henchman of the respondent-plaintiff and the Court 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 2004, she being the wife received Rs.8,00,000/- towards death benefits and the loan taken by her from the Bank is Rs.6,50,000/-. P.Nageswara Rao is her junior paternal uncle, he knows one V.Raghavarao son of Pentayya, with that acquaintance, she was given in marriage to him on 17.05.2009 in Annavaram Devastanam as per Hindu rites, customs and traditions. At the time of marriage, her family members gave Rs.6,00,000/- as dowry and Rs.50,000/- towards lanchanam to V.Raghavarao. Raghavarao stopped doing any job and was addicted to bad vices like drinking and spent all his earnings besides salary of the appellant-defendant and he used to abuse her in filthy language. Disputes arose between her and P.Nageswara Rao with regard to the performance of marriage of her sister. At that time, Raghavarao has supported Nageswara Rao. Nageswara Rao has demanded the appellant-defendant to bring dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- 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 Swamy who is also an Advocate Clerk, resident of Chillangi Village, hatched a plan to cheat her and cause mental agony, they created fabricated pro-note in the name of the plaintiff and filed false suit. Appellant-defendant has filed private complaint against Nageswara 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) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim?

4) To what relief?

5. Respondent-Plaintiff is examined as PW.1, g