Allowed

M Narasimha Rao v. R. Hanumantha Rao

Telangana HC12 Apr 2023CCCA/165/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against a money recovery decree. The High Court found the plaintiff failed to prove the promissory note was executed and supported by consideration, and the signature comparison was legally flawed. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the decree.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside. The amount deposited by the appellant before the trial court is directed to be returned to him.

M Narasimha Rao Vs R. Hanumantha Rao — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321s ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶6

c.c.c.A.No :^'t65 0F 2018

¶7

Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the Judgement and Decree dated 03-042018 made in O.S.No.771 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the XVll Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M Narasimha Rao, S/o M.R.Prasad, aged about 45 yrs, Occ : Business, Rl/o.H.No 2067, MIG Phase- l, BHEL, Chandangar, Hyderabad.

¶10

...APPELLANT/OEFENDANT

¶11

ANO

¶12

R. Hanumantha Rao, S/o Venkata Rao, aged about 47yrs, Occ; Business, Rl/o H.No 1 6-2-1 47 I 66, Anand Nagar, Mmalakpet, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶14

|.A.NO:1 OF 20'18

¶15

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay all further proceedings, including execution^proceedings in iudgment and decree dated 03-04-2018 in O.S.No.771l2016 on the file of XVll Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad^pending appeal, and^pass such other or orders.

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI.PUSHADAPU SUBBA RAO

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents : M/s.K.ANNAPURNA^REDDY

¶18

The Court made the following Judgment :^-

¶19

.THE IIC'NOURABT,E DR.JUSTICE (].II1.I)H \ R,\NI

¶20

c.c.cr.A.No.165 0F 2 018

¶21

JUDGME,NTI

¶22

lhis ap'real s liled by the defbndant aggrie.ed br rhc .judunrent and clecrec passed in t). i.l{o.771 ot'2016 on the file of the XVII Acldrtional Senior Civil .ludge, r-lit,, l;vil Court. Ilyderabad dated 03.04 .l{)18 dir.ecting the appellant hcren lo llrLy an antount of Rs.8,30,000/- with rrt[)s3quent interest 89^{12% per arnlrn lrom} the date olsuit till the date olcrr:r'ce and thereafter with future inte:rest ( r1,^('t "/s pgyannurn till the date o1'realizat (,n ( n thc principal amount of Rs.-5.00 li klrs with costs thereon to the respon<1e n i I r: rein.

¶23

Tlie parlies :lri hs..i, altel r-ef'errecl as anayed be ftr ro lt,: tn al court

¶24

The casc o1' t re plaintil'l- was that the plaintifl a.<l rl- s clelendant werc known to eacl o:hr l since sevelal years and out of rhal rcquaintance, the del-endant approat:hr d the plaintilf for hand loan of lts.5 r)0 lakhs and on 24.10.2013 the plairrr 11'gave thc said arnount to the clel'endarr. rncj rhe defendant executed a demancl p on-rissory note and passed a separatc rt,r;.:i;11 n161 agreed to repay thc sarre w rh n a per.iod o1'onc year along with in.,:r.es[ (E 24 % per annum. The deten,la rt having received the hand loan arnount ailr.cl to repay the same as agreed earli :r and dragged the matter fbr m,,nths lt gether inspite of repcated reques:s on 20.0 1.2016.21.03.2016 and 15.07.2()l( anrl on the othcr

¶25

¶26

¶27

Dr.GRR, J ccco_765_2078

¶28

hand threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences. Again on 20.07 .2016,^the plaintiff demanded the defendant to repay the loan amount^with interest but^the defendant threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences.^{As such, havingno} other alternative, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery^{of money.}

¶29

The defendant filed written statement denying the^{petition averments.He} contended that his name was M.R.Narasimha^{Rao but not M.Narasimha Rao as} alleged in the plaint. The house^premises bearing^{No.2067,MIG Phase-I,} BHEL, Chanda Nagar which was sought for attachment^{was the self-acquired} property of his father namely Sri M.R.Prasad^{havingpurchasedthe same} through a deed of conveyance bearing^{documentNo.3398 of 1996dated} 10.05.1996 from BHEL represented by its^{VicePresidentSri P.Kanthaiah.He} admitted that the plaintiff was known to^{him for the past several yearsbut} denied that he approached the^{plaintiff for a hand loan amount and executeda} promissory note and passed a separate receipt acknowledging^{the same.He} contended that he never received an amount^{of Rs.5.00 lakhs on 24.102013-As} a matter of fact, he was neither in Hyderabad^{nor at his houseon the said date.} He was out of station on his^{pre-occupation. As such,the question ofexecution} of atleged promissory note on 24.10.2013^{would not arise at atl. The plaintiff}

¶30

filed the suit by creating the alleged^{promissory note datcd24-10-2013for} wrongful gain by forging his signature.^{Thefather and relatives ofthe plaintiff} filed cases against the defendant basing on^{the alleged money transactions}

¶31

¶32

Dt.GRR,l ccco 165 2018

¶33

sevcral years Sack rt t :he said cases were dismissed.^-f rc plrrintifl filed the present suit u,th ll|ricated docunteuts fbr wrongl'ul gain r,,irh a vieri,to harass the clcll'ndant. TJrc plaintiff hacl not approached the c:ou11^.ri h clean hands and suppressed trLtL' iluc nralerial lircts ancl was not entitled lb. cccvery of money and prayed to ,lisrni s tllc suit r.r,ith exemplary costs

¶34

Basing on thc s:rid pleadings the trial couft framed th,: ollowing issues i) Whcther tht, t,ir pronisxtry nole is true, valitl :.,ttl xtpportetl by consideration:

¶35

ii) Wtctltcr tht ltlui^,ti/[ i.s entitled for recovery of sui; clair.t.rittr,r tlte tleJenlont as pru.ycd .f br?

¶36

iii) To what reiie/⁾

¶37

1he plaintil'l' c:rarnined hirnscll' as PW. I and got trirrkt:d the demand promissory note irs r.',..A1. The defendant examined hintse I^'as DW1 and got marked Exs.B 1c Ir^:l on his behall. Ex.Bl was the copy (,'tlrc registered sale deed document No. li98 of 199(r dated 10.05.1996 in the I rrnt: of l.ris farher, Ex.B2 rvas tl'le ,:n unrbrance ccrlitlcate dated t7.r)8.2() 1.. tx.83 was the statement ol' encrrrr rr ance ol- thc said propelty issued b1. thc Sub-Registrar, Serilinganrpallv clat, d t7.08.201 6 and Ex.B4 was the nrarkr:t v rlue ceftificate issued by the Sub-ll, g strar, Serilingampally.

¶38

On cons,de'ir I the oral ancl documentary evidencc o I ecord, though the defendant exanrined a; l)W1. denied his signatures rbund .- r I x.Al. the trial

¶39

r-;,,.1.i

¶40

¶41

Dt.GRR, ccco 765 2078

¶42

couft took upon it the task of comparing the signaturcs of the defendant on his vakalath, written statement, chief evidence atfidavit, cross-examination and on the counter filed by him in l.A.No.63l of 2016 in the suit and obseryed that the signatures were not similar to each other but had significant changes and were dissimilar in slanting, size of letters and curves, more particularly the signatures made by him on his chief evidence affidavit and therefore held that he was rn the habit of signing signatures differently and was trying to escape from the suit liability by falsely disowning his signatures in Ex.Al and in the absence of the defendant filing any registered documents containing his original signature or his bank cheques containing his signature prior to the suit transaction to show that his signature was similar to the signatures made by him in his vakalath and written statement and also in his evidence, but not as found in Ex.Al, disbelieved the stand taken by the deflendant.

¶43

The trial court also disbelieved the contention of the defendant that Ex.Al could not be believed in the absence ofany witnesses to the said document and that no legal notice was issued by the plaintiff prior to filing the suit but as the defendant had not taken any steps to send Ex.Al document to the handwriting expert, held that the plaintiffestablished his case against the defendant and was entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant.

¶44

¶45

Dr.GRR, J tccd 165 2078

¶46

Aggrier cd b1 t tc said judgment ancl decree passcd lr1 ther trial couft, the defendant preten'cr his appcal conteuding that the trir., corrrl crroneously decreecl the surt ri,i h costs and failed to consider thirt therrr \vo-e no witnesses signed on Irr.,'t l. sr a so or1 the rcceil-rt ancl no notice rvas i:rrirred by thc plaintiff seeking relirnil o l- r )c amount fl'om the appellant p,-ior t(' rilirrg lhe suit and failed to cousirler th : rrclrnissions madc by PW.l in his cross.:xamination about the diffcrcnce ,rl ink u;ecl tbr. the signature and the particulars u,r tteu on Ex.A l, and that I)w'. I adrni tecl in his cross-examination that hc wir.; residing i. BIIEL

¶47

contra to his plear inqs that Ex.AI pro-note translctron tool: placc at lris residence situated a llalakpct, u,hich established his Ihlst .lairn. IIc lurthcr contended thal tLe initial burclcn was on the plaintill' kr :stiLblish that the defendant had -'xe ct tel Irx.Al on 24.10.2013 after receivirtl: thr'considcration amount of [ts.5.00 li k]rs mentioned therein and failed to pr(r,,1 the exccution of Ex.Al by tlrc lrlaiLrrril'ancl prayed to sct aside the jurlgnrer I urd decrcc of the trial court.

¶48

Ileard th,: lt'ar ted coulsel for thc appellant defendalt a,d the learned counsel fbr thc^-es1to rdent plaintiff.

¶49

1 1.^'fhc lcarr,ed c, u^.rscl fbr the appellant contended tha rhat therc was no jurisdiction to the li I courl 1o rry the said suit, is the plairtirf almirrcd in his cross-exarninati,-rn 11, , he was residing in BHEL at the tirn: ,)1' transirction, as

¶50

¶51

..,i,.."j

¶52

Dt.GRR, cccd 169 2018 \

¶53

both the parties were not residing within the jurisdiction of the trial cour1, the amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs alleged to have been borrowed by the defendant was not a smalI amount and the plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination that he was an Income Tax assessee but failed to fitc his Income Tax returns showing the above transaction, there were no witnesses to the alleged transaction, the same was suspicious. The plaintiff further admitted that the signature and the writings on the pro-note were with different inks, but the trial court failed to consider the same, the trial court without resofting to comparing the writings on its own under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, ought to have sent the same to the handwriting expert for comparison and relied upon the^judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Courl in The Statc (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ramr, Ajit

¶54

Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka2 and Jagdish Prasad Patel^(Dead) through LRs and Another v. Shivnath and Others3.

¶55

The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the trial courl contending that when the original promissory note itself was filed, there was no need to examine any witnesses to prove the same, no petition was filed by the defendant to send the document to. Forensic Science Laboratory (for short "FSL"), admitted facts need not be proved as per Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act. The plaintiff also admitted in his cross-exarnination

¶56

'^{(t979)2 scc158}

¶57

'(1997\7^{scc Iro}

¶58

'(2019)^{6 scc 82}

¶59

I i /./

¶60

¶61

DI.GRR, J cccd 765 2018

¶62

that he rvas rt:sicLirr r both in \4alakpet and BI.IEI_, lher.c sno i)legality in the judgmcnt of the tri: I r oult and prayed to dismiss the appeal

¶63

Now thr-. poir r. lbl considcration is:

¶64

i) Wether tlta tr;ut ct)u/'l t,e\ ltrrving.f trri-sdiction to try tlte .;,tit'l ii) lllhather ,ht, .; rit ;t rotn i:.tt '1'.y /r()./(, rr.a-r tr.uc, t,nlid :tntl supported by considcrttli on'.' iii) Ilhether tJ'e rrit I :ortrr <:orrtrtifietl ont error in dtcrcctt ; rh: sttit in fat,our of the respond:nt - 1'lrintiffl

¶65

i) Wrether the triu ('ourt y,us having.iuriscliction to try thc ,,uir?

¶66

The platnti '1- :xanrined hirnsellas PW. l. He flletl hir cvidence affidavit on the same lines o^'lris plaint a/errnents. The plaintill'arlr rirtt:d in his crossexamination that rht defendanr's father rvas his childhood^.li,:nci and they were neighbours in B^LII [. 1-ownship and lurther ad,irtecl trrrt at the time of executlon of pronris iory note i.e Ex.Al dated 24.10 20 ll I c ryas residing ln BHEL Township.

¶67

As per lhe ct nleltion o1' the learned counsel for. tlr: appellant, as the transaction too( pJa, e at UIllrl . 1'orvnship, the XVII Se ni.. ('i*il Judge, City civil court rvould hz vc no jurisdiction to entertain the suit a rrl thr: suit was filed by the plaintifl- statir g that basing on the promissory noto. lr,: was a resident of Anand Nagar, ,lahl pr:t and had shorvn his address as suc r rnd also filed his evidence alfidai it sh ,r'ing that he rvas a resident of Anand lJr gar Malakpet.

'a'

Dr.GRR, ccco_755_2078

¶72

The admissions made by PW. I in his cross-examination would prove that he had flled the suit claiming wrong jurisdiction. As such, rhis point need to be answered against the plaintiffand in favour of the defendant.

¶73

ii) llhether the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration?

¶74

PW.l filed the promissory note dated 10.04.2013, marked as Ex.Al. Ex.Al is the promissory note as well as receipt for receiving the arnount of Rs.5.00 lakhs but both these documents were not signed in the presence of any of the witnesses. The writings on the promissory note and the signatures were with different ink. The writings would disclose the name of the defendant as M.Narasimha Rao and that he was resident of H.No.2067, MIG Phase-I, BHEL, Hyderabad and that on demand, he promised to pay to the plaintiff i.e., Sri R.Hanumantha Rao, S/o. Venkata Rao, who was residing at H.No.l6-2-147166, Anand Nagar, Malakpet, Hyderaad, the sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs with interest @^{24 % per annum.PWl also admitted that the defendantwas calledas} M.R.Narasimha Rao and added that he was also called as M.Narasimha Rao He admitted that he was an IT assessee prior to 2012 and stated that he did not remember whether he had shown the amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs in his Income Tax returns filed by him for the assessment year /013-14. He also admitted that there were no witnesses, signed on Ex.A 1 as well as on receipt and that there were no witnesses when he demanded the money from defendant. He also

¶75

¶76

Dt,GRR, J crcd 155 2078

/:.'

,,.

,r/

admitted that lrc lrar r ot issLred anv rvritten notice eithe r b r lrinrsell'ol through his counsel denrarrdi rE rclund of nroney pl'ior to iiling thc p^',lrienl suit.

¶82

The delcnc ar t examined hinrself as I)Wl arrd he ilerl his evidencc aflldavit on thr: siur.: lincs of bis pleadings as in liis rvrittt n statement. In his cross-examirlat ion, I c adrnitted that hc klew the fathel ol t rr. pli,intill- by name Shri Venkata llac I rr tlre past ten ( I 0) years. He denier I rhat hc signed on Ex.Al and hacl talie r ir sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs liom the plai rtifl-on 24.10.2013. He also adnrittt:cl the lLc liad not filcd any docuntent to slro,r hat hc rvas out ol Hyderabad on ll4.I 0 l(tl 3

¶83

19.^'Ihus, th,ruEh rhc def-endant adrnitted that he rvas rr:,:luarnted with the ptaintiff and his larn ly, clenied rhat he executed Ex.Al prorr. jsor-y note or that any consideration u rs passed unrler it or that he signcd oi tlc receipt and contended that his si lnatures u,ere lorgcd. When the clclerr[ nt is denying his signatures, the rurde r lies on thc plaintiff to prove that the I.on.rissory note is true, valid iind bind nr1 on the dcf'cndant and that consid :^-:Ltio n wirs passcd under it on the rlatc n errtioned in it. Admittedly, there wcre n.) witnesses to the said transaction tht plaintiff failcd to file his bank statentrr: to shorv that the amount was transler: e<l through cheque or withdrawn by lL r.r at thc relevant time. He had not s..at :d the rnode o1-payment whdther he pai 1 it througli cash or cheque or by any cth :r rneans 01'transfer. Though, he admil.,:d t tat he was an

¶84

¶85

DT,ARR, cccd 765 2078

¶86

IT assessee and was filing his lT returns prior to 2012^failed to file^{his IT} returns for the assessmenl year 2013-14 to show that he had shown the said transaction of giving the hand loan to the defendant at the relevant time.^As such, the passing of consideration itself is doubtful.^{Admittedly, he had not} given any notice demanding the defendant to repay the amount^prior to^filing the suit. He only stated that he made oral demands on24.01.2016,21.03.2016, 15.07.2016 and20.07.2016. He also admitted that there^{were no witnesses to} the said demand made by him. Thus, there^{were no witnessesto the transaction} under Ex.Al either at the time of^{givingloan to} the^{defendantor at the time of} making demand for repayment of the loan.^{Thus, the plaintilf failed to prove} that the suit promissory note was supported by any consideration.

¶87

The defendant also contended that his signature^{was forged by the} plaintiff and the said promissory note was a fabricated document.^{The burden} would lie upon the defendant to prove the^fact of^{forgery but he had not filed} any application along with his admitted signatures to^{send Ex.A1 to FSL. In the} absence of any such petition filed by the defendant,^{the trial court tookupon} itself the burden of comparing the signatures of the defendant^{on Ex.A1 with hrs} signatures on his vakalath, written statement, evidence^{affidavitand as well as} the counter affidavit f,rled by him in I.A.No.631 of^{2016 and held that the} defendant was in the habit of signing differently.^{The Hon'bleApex Court tn} The State (Delhi Administration) v. PaIi Ram⁽¹ supra),^{held that:}

¶88

11,

¶89

Dr.GRR, J ccco 165 2018

¶90

" lu' ntatter crtn lt |ict (rl .f rom dtnthcl d ql. ut o. -4.ttlottgh tlrrt' i.s rto lcgol l,nr b tht,.ltrdg,, 1t! fiia lti\ o\n e.t (,.\ lo conry)orc thc dispttt^l l iltne :titlt tltc trdntittcd vtitin.g, tt,cn t.itlrou, rh tirl o/' the L'rirlt,ncc of anl huntlt.rrrinl (t\ r('t.|, llc Jrukc :;hould, u.\ a nt( tt,t. ot lil^{ut.'1,'c ond tdutiou,} hcsitttt,, tu hr.rr. lti. .fit^{tli'tg tt'ith rcgortl} to tltc iclcntitt. ol. t itt tr,rrtiting \lti(lt l,ttDts tlrt sltt,,t-anclto ,4 tlt, l)t^{)s,'culton casc u.gait6t a} perxtn accuse tl o,t ttt ol t?ti(c .solel), ott (omparison nadc by hinsctl. I is, tl.cr,:'/bre, not odt,isoblc thul a Jttdge shtryll tu e ulron hintsell the ta.sk of contpot,tnt lht o( tltttcd u,rititlq \t'ith the disptrtcd one to firtt ot t,'ht'ther the Ito o.qrce y,ith t'ach othtr; ,rnc th 1.r udent coursc i.y to obtuin the opiniitrt ,tnt ut is^t(t!ce ofan <:xpart."

¶91

2t. The IIon'hlc A ix.x Court in State of Maharashtra v. lirrkhrlcv Singha,

¶92

held that

¶93

"., ltl'ough, lhe ,\c< tiott (Scction 73 of the tntlian Er dcnrc Act) sped.licall.y, empov)crs the c)ut t ta co \l:drc tht, di.spurcd writings v'ith the spL,ciDn,n '' tdtnirkd writittes showt to be gt ntrtnt, Dr d(trcc dcrnunds thot the court .shotrltl lxt t:r,'c,ncl.y sloy irt t't'ttlurittg un opinion ,tn lhc ho i.s of merc cotttpurison, n1ot.t, so y,h,n !Irc qu,li'.y of etitlctte irt respect of'spectnl(n / rul d,tel^y,riting.s is ttot of.high snrndard.

¶94

In Dhanakorli Pudayachi v. Muthu Kumarasrvamt,'. he Madras High Court held that:

¶95

"It is cl,:ar there Jront that the main rcason lbr ,li.s t1i ;s111* tht.sttit i.t t(tntpat.ison oI siBnrrru).r,.r. .V.t,, n though, the <'ourt nny hat,e' the pover to rattpJr( the signaturcs, thetc nust be soue ,rrlt titterl signatLn-r..s of tlrc tlefandatlt, (,n th?

¶96

o 1992 ArR 2 t oo '^{1997 (II) N1LJ37}

+.! '/'

Dr.6R cccq 765 2018

basis of wlrich a comparison will have to be made. ln this case, a comparison has been made on thc basis of signaturcs aJfixed by the defendant in thc vakalath and in the written statement x'hich are lhe docuncnls lhat have come into exislence after the dispulc arose and after the promissory note in Ercslion was -filed into courl along u,itlt plaint. A comparison .should not have been ntade on the basis of those signatures. lJ that be so, it has to be held thal lhe comparison was not rnade in accordance with law, even lhough, the coltrl is ctnpou,ered to make a comparison.^"

¶101

The Hon'ble Apex Court ln Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of

¶102

Karnataka6, held that:

¶103

" 38. As a nnlter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety, the Court should not normally take upon ilse( lhc responsibility of contparing the disputed signaturc wilh that oJ' the admitted signature or handwriting and in lhe event of the slightest doubl, leave the matter to lhe wisdont of experts. Bul this does not mean that the Court has not the power to compare the disputed signature with the admilted signature as this power is clearly available uruler Scction 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.^"

¶104

The trial court comparing the signatures of the defendant on vakalath,

¶105

written statement and counter which were filed subsequent to Ex.Al on its own and observing that the defendant was intentionally signing differentty, ought not to have been made and basing on such obseruation, ought not to have allowed the suit. The circumstances like there were no witnesses to the execution of promissory note and passing of consideration under it, the transaction not

¶106

"^(1997)7 scc^{l lo}

¶107

¶108

DI.GRR, J cccd 165 2018

¶109

I t

¶110

¶111

shown in I'l l,icttrlr s by the plaintiffl, admissions rracle tx' he plainlil'f in his cross-examinar ior ; brrur his residence at BIIEL al the ti:ne ol tlansaction contrary to thc co rlr nls of the ckrcumcnt under Ex.A I and I is tiutircl rrdntission about the dillclerce irr rvlitings ol'the contents and signatr rr: b1 thc ricl'endant and del-endanr <lcn^,ri rg the transaction all creatcs a sL.r;picLon altout the genuinity 01'tl,c trar sirction. In vierv of the same. thc plairrifl tirilcrl to prove that the suit pronris oly note was true. valid and binrling or Lhe delcndant and that the sanre ii srrp; o ted by consideration. As such, issue l. o.2 is answered in favour of thc ar)p( lli nl defendant as against the resprrnden. plitintil'l

¶112

iii) Whethar thc tt:al court committed any error in de':r'zeing tltc suit in feuour^{of tlte rL,s1;ordent} -^plainti.f/?

¶113

Even th.rullh tl'e defendant fhiled to prove tlre as,,t (,f forgcry, the initial burdcn lie:; t p,rn the plaintiff to prove that eonsic t: ariort q rrs Passed under the suil pl,nt si;ory note and the plaintiff lailerl to 1,rr ve the sarne. As such, the suit nc,:c[ to be distlissed but the trial cc,url d:c ree ng thc suit is against the establisl erl principles of law. As such, the s lrne need to be set aside.

¶114

In thc resul . t te C'CCA is allowed setting aside. the j trlement and decree passed in O.S.No.7i I of 2016 by the XVII Additional Seni:r Ciril Judge, Ciry Civil Court, Ilyccrrbad dated 03.04.2018. The arnoun: Jeposircd by the appellant^.- rlcl','nc ar t lrelbre the trial coult is directed ro be r r:r umed to him

¶115

).4

¶116

¶117

Dt.GRR, ccca 765 2078

¶118

No order as to costs

¶119

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any,

¶120

shall stand closed.

¶121

SdIM.VIJAYA^BHASKAR JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

/2.,

secldHorrtcen

to ,1. ,n" XV1 Additionar Senior civir Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad. (with

¶126

Records).

¶127

z ili!"rc1" SRI.PUSHADAPU^{SUBBARAo' Advocate [oPUc]}

¶128

6;;66 ii^{ilirJ.x,qr.rnnFunNnneoov, Advocate [oPUC]}

¶129

Two^{CD CoPies}

HIGH COrUlt'r

DATED:1 2l),112023

JUDGMEIN'-

C.C.C.A.flc.1 65 of 2018

¶136

?1:
,. St A rr'' L)
) (i
,
)
(l
() I1 'tttt ilTl
-'. ,i
,-,) " ./
<br>|.'

ALLOWINIG THE APPEAL

WITHOU'I'cOSTS.

@4,8 dfo/) E1+;

[³²¹⁵ ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶142

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶143

PRESENT

¶144

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RAOHA RANI

¶145

C.C.C.A.NO: 165 OF 2018

¶146

Between:

¶147

M Narasimha Rao, S/o M.R.Prasad, aged about 45 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No 2067, MIG Phase- l, BHEL, Chandangar, Hyderabad.

¶148

...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT

¶149

AND

¶150

R. Hanumantha Rao, S/o Venkata Rao, aged about 47yrs, Occ; Business, Rl/o H.No. 16-2-147166, Anand Nagar, Mmalakpet, Hyderabad.

¶151

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶152

Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C-, against the Judgement and Decree dated 03-04-2018 made in O.S.No-771 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the XVtt Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶153

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.PUSHADAPU SUBBA RAO, Advocate for the Appellant and of M/s.K.ANNAPURNA REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶154

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶155

That the CCCA be and hereby is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.77112016 by the XVll Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad dated 03-04-2018.

¶156