Allowed

Rapelli Satyanarayana v. Dontha Devadas

Telangana HC10 Apr 2023SA/16/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Second Appeal challenged the First Appellate Court's decree upholding a loan recovery suit. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the loan transaction and execution of the agreement on the alleged date, rendering the lower appellate finding unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal allowed, judgment and decree of the first appellate Court set aside, judgment and decree of the trial Court restored.

Rapelli Satyanarayana Vs Dontha Devadas — Money Laundering | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE^{TENTH DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICESAMBASIVARAO NAIDU}

¶6

SECOND APPEAL NO:^{16 OF 202'l}

¶7

AppealunderSectionl00ofCPCagainsttheJudgmentanddecreedated 281O8t2020 made^{in AS No.330f 2019 0n the file of the court of the lX Additional} District and sessions^{Judge, Sircilla, preferred against the judgment and decreein} os No.B1 ol 2011 daled^{'l4to6l2o19on the file of the court of the Principalsenior} Civil Judge, Sircilla.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Rapelli Satyanarayana,^{S/o. Parsha.ram,Age 58 Years' Occ Business'}

¶10

ivdg.ruo. a-t_l+o,^{Nenrrnagar, sircilla Town andMandal, Rajanna sircilla} District.

¶11

ZnaoelliBhoolaxmi,W/o.Satyanarayana,Age53Years,OccHous-ewife' - iifit-i.i!". 6-]-iao, r1t"nrrnag6r, Siriila Town and Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District

¶12

...A''ELLANTS/ RE.'.NDENTS/^DEFENDANTS

¶13

AND

¶14

Dontha Devadas, S/o.^{Bhoomaiah, Age58 years, occ Business,Rl/o.Bhuvanarushi} Nagar, Sircilla Proper^{and Mandal,Rajanna-Sircilla.District'} , ...RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF

¶15

IAN O:3 OF^2O21

¶16

Petition under section^{151 of cPC praying that in the circumstances slated} in the affidavit^{filed herein, the Highcourt may be pleased to stay all further} proceedings including execution^{of the judgment and decree in A.S.No. 33 of 2019,} in tnu f'f"" of lX ldditional^{Districtand Sessions Judge at Sircilla,dated} 28.O8.2020.

¶17

For the Appellants^{: SRI K.VENUMADHAV' Advocate}

¶18

For the Respondent^{: SRI V'V' RAMANA RAO,Advocate}

¶19

The Court delivered the^{following : JUDGMENT}

¶20

¶21

HONOUI ABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA TtAO hIAIDU

¶22

S.A.NO.16 ot 2O2L

¶23

JUDGMEN'I- :

¶24

This :;e, o rd appeal has been preferrt:d by :he appellants, who are defer dants in O.S.No.B1 of 2011 cn:h€ 'ile of Principal lunior Civil Jr dge, Sircilla and the present appe:l is filed under Section 100 o^(-.P.C. against the Judgment ernd D:t.ree'of the first Appellate CoL rt in A.S.No.33 of 2079, where rr-ler the lower Appellate Cou t allowed the appeal and reversed -- e Judgment of the trial^(lor rt ir O.S.No.B1 of 2011.

¶25

A: could be seen from tne record, the

¶26

respondent/pl irrtiff filed the above referreci O.S.l' o.t)1 of 201L against the a1: >e,liants herein for recovery of rnone / ,)n :he trasis of an al ege d ac^-€ement supposed to have br-,en e ;<r:cuted by the appellant, her:i r on 28-03-2011. As per th: averrrerts made in the plaint fi ec before the trial Court, the responct:rrt/plaintiff has claimed ttat t e appellants herein approachel hirr c n -6-03-2011 and souctht I)r a loan of Rs.99,000/- to rre(, their family necessiti€s ar d having considered the said r(^(l lest, he has arranqed th,: rnrount of Rs.99,000 /-, and the appr:rllants in turn executed oan r! reement on a non-judicial stamp^yi --th Rs.50/- on

¶27

¶28

¶29

) SSRN,] S A.No r6 of 202r

¶30

28-03-2011 promising the respondent to repay the said amount on or before 15-05-2021. The respondent further alleged that the said document was executed in the^presence of Rapelli Parashuram, Korapati Sridhar^(who was examined as^PW.2 before the trial Court) and Adepu Ravinder.^{He has also alleged that the} appellants herein failed to clear the^{loan, thereby soughtfora} decree against the appellants herein.

¶31

Both the appellants appeared^{before the trial Court,} filed a common written statement^{denying the plaint averments} and claiming that they^{have no acquaintancewith the plaintiff.} TheV never approached him for^{loan, as such, they did not receive} any amount and did not execute^{any agreement as alleged in the} plaint. They have also^pleaded that the^{respondent himself is due} to pay money to several^{persons and he had no capacityt0} arrange such a loan but^{he has createdthe above referredloan} agreement with the^{help of his supportersto extractmoney from} the appellants herein^{and sought for dismissal of the suit'}

¶32

In view of the above^{rival contentions,the trial Court} framed the following^issues:

¶33

Whether the loan agreement^{dated 28-03-2011is true' valid and} binding on the^{defenda nts?}

¶34

Whether the^{plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount} from the defenda nts?

¶35

To what relief?

¶36

¶37

S5RN,J 5.A lio 16 of 2021

¶38

¶39

tl rr ng the trial, the respondent/Jrla nt lt wrrs examined as P\rV.1 and )re of the alleged attestors wars ,:xil-.linod as pW.2. Exs.A1 and A, '^/ere marked on his behalf. The 1' Cefendant was examined a; )V/.1 but he did not mark any docurrr::ntr;. The trial Court did nr t believe the case of resltonde nl/plaintiff and dismissed tl-c ;uit vide Judgment dated t4-Ot,_2OL),

¶40

fh )^{-espondent/plaintiff} filed appeal bef:,re :he learned IX Addl. Distr;r t Judge, Sircilla, vide A.S.No.3l of 2019. The lower Appellate Cc ur : framed the following two points for consideration in the appea r:rnely :

¶41

Vr'h tler the appellant/plaintiff is able to prr,ve with cogent ev{( lrce as to the loan transaction dated t6,0l 20_1 and if so, ^ h( :h:r the appellant/plaintiff is entiued for rr<;r.very of the suit a 1l( )r t? \,lt t :h3r the fin(lrngs of learned trial Corrrt is riU:,tairlable and/or wa l- lr ts any interference by this Court?

¶42

Tir. lss16s6 Addl. District Judge havi rr; heard both parties and cln;irJering the oral and documentarv €,Jence placed before hirr, e llc wed the appeal and passed a Decr(l€: in lavour of the responde n1^,p laintiff for recovery of the suit ,im()unt with interest @ 6ol, 6 3r.annum and with costs of the appe;r .

¶43

B. Br:rr; aggrieved by the saicl Jucl:1mr:nt, the appella nts/lef er J,rnts filed the present appeal cn t-re following grounds:

¶44

¶45

S5RN,I 5.A^No.16of2021

¶46

The first Appellate^{Court failed to look into the records i'e''} no materlal is^{brought on record by the respondent/plaintiffto} substantiate that^{he has paidmoneyto the appellants herein but} erroneouslysetasidetheJudgmentandDecreeofthetrialCourt. TheCourtbelowfailedtolookintothefindingsofthetrialCourt and in contrarY^{to it, bY} giving its own findings^{set aside the} The first appellate^{Courtfailed to look} Judgment of^{the trial Court.} into the doubt^exPressed by the trial Court^{about the date of} execution of^{the suit agreement,thereby the respondent/plaintiff} failed to Prove^{his case'}

¶47

-g.Afterhearingthelearnedcounselfortheappellant before admission,^{the following substantial question of lawwas} formulated^{in this second appeal:}

¶48

Whether^{the findings of the first appellateCourt are perversein} passing Decree in^{favour of the respondent/plaintiff?}

¶49

In the^{absenceof anyproof showingthat the plaintiffhas advanced} Rs.99,000/-^{to the defendants'if so' whetherthe Judgmentof the} first appellate^{Court is sustainable under law or warrants interference} of this^Court?

¶50

For convenience^{sake, the partieswill be referred to as} they are^{arrayedin the plaintfiled before the trial Court' The} plaintiff has filed^{the abovereferred original suit for recoveryof} money on the^{basis of an allegedagreement under which he said} tohaveadvancedanamountofRs.gg,000/.tothedefendants.

¶51

-7

¶52

SSRN,] s A l]o 16 0f 2021

¶53

Accordin3 tc h: case of the plaintiff before the t-,, I Court and as per hrs evider :r:, both the defendants approached - m for financial assistan(e on 1i-03-201. 1 and he has advanceci Rs, 99,000/-. The defendarts lr executed an agreement vide E>: 41 which was drafted c,n I tcn-judicial stamp worth Rs.50/- l-l:rwe:ver, at the time of his r vidence before the Court below. lltr: 6rlaintiff has categoricell), I t. ted that he has purchased the s;r:,,rmp paper fOr Ex.A1 agreem trt on 28-03-2011. But according rr) his; own case, he has adv:n .ed Rs.99,000/- to the defendants :,n ,6_03-2011 and on tl-re :;a rt: day, they have executed Ex.A t a(,r.eenent. It is also the c as': f plaintiff that both the defendants - i, ve sioned the document in e presence of pw.2 and two other wi--res;es namery Parshurart an( Fta vinde r The defendants have clairr.ed before the trial Cour: th;r they did not execute any such do:!ment but the plaintiff fabr ci t€ d Ex.A1 by forgery. The p aintif f ns tite of the said denial, (lic rot choose to take steps for sendin; -he document with the ardnrit el signatures of the defendants for (.orr parison of report fro.n a. t:xpert. However, the first appell;r:r: Court while exercising the lowers under Section 73 of Indiar l:vi<ience Act, compared th: ranatures of the defendants avairat) t, o. vakarath and writte r s[.r errents with Ex.A1 and came to the c r.,nc usion that

¶54

{--

¶55

SSRN,] 6 s A.No.16^0f2021

¶56

the said document^{was executed by the defendants and reversed} the Judgment^{of the trial Court'}

¶57

As^{per the averments in the plaint and accordingto the} evidence^{placed before the Court,it was specifically pleaded by the} plaintiff that he^{has advancedRs'99,000/-to defendantson} 16-03-20llandthedefendantshavesignedtheloanagreementin the^{presence of PW.2 and one R'Parshuram' But the evidence} furtherShowthatStamppaperusedforpreparingEX'AIloan agreement^{was purchasedon 2B-03-2011' Therefore'it is quite} clear that^{the stamp under Ex.A1 was not with the plaintiffon 16-} 03-2011.^{Itwas not the case of plaintiFf that he obtained} signatures of^{defendantson 2B-03-2011'The lowerappellate} Courtbelievedthecaseofplaintiffonthegroundthatthe signatures^{on Ex.Al, whenthe same was compared with admitted} signatures^{they are appearingto be similar' Evenif the signatures} are identical,^{the plaintiff is supposed to prove that the signatures} were made by^{the defendantsonly when they borrowed money} from the^{plaintiff. The defendants have claimed that the plaintiff} obtained^{their signatureson blank documentand created Ex'Al'} As^per the^{evidenceof PW'1 itself the stamp was not with him on} 16-03-2011.^{Therefore,the plaintiff cannot clalmEx Al}

¶58

¶59

SSRN,] 5.A No 16 0f 2021

¶60

I t

¶61

t I

¶62

agreemr,nt y/ ts executed on 16_03_2011 under t..t(: ct -cumstances which he ple; Jt:d in the plajnt.

¶63

12 It nray be true, the Court can compalc th(l signatures by virtue of S^,c:ion 73 cf Indian Evidence Act, but i. this particular case, th€, dei ndants have claimed that they clid rrot borrow any amount f rorn h: plaintiff on 16_03_2011 anc they did rot execute any agr€,enle t on 16-03-2011 and they lid n(): execute any agreement or :hat particular day. Since the praintiff himself admitted th;rt ;t,rmp was purchased on 2B_03-201- it i:; very clear that the deFe dants could not have executed E.(.,\1 on 16_03 2011. The Co r below having concluded that. ther: s cliscrepancy between lhe t( sr imony oF pW.1 and pW.2, further _ eld that since the signatur.s rf defendants on Ex.A1 are simirar- t, the r adrnitted signatures, th r loan transaction dated 16_0i_2tr .1 has been proved Thr: rr;rintiff has categoricaIy crainrecr t- i, t (,efendants having borrow:c Rs.99,000/- from him on 16-().1_2011 have executed Ex.A. L)n the same day and attestors E ls,c s;ioned the document, it w )s not the case of plaintiff that he l(int money to defendants, or -(,-03-2011 and defendants have e>l rcuted Ex.A1 on 2B-03-.1011 ThereFore, the Court cannot give rch a finding against the cese rcla m of plaintifF

¶64

S5RN,] 5^{A.No15o{ 20)I}

¶65

13.^{Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove the suit loan} transaction^{and executionof Ex'A1 on 28-03-2011'Therefore'the} trial Court^{rightly dismissedthe suit but the first Appellate Court} came^{to a wrong conclusion on the basis of its own comparisonof} documents.^{As such,the said findingis liable to be set asideand} suit is^{liable to be dismissed'}

¶66

L4.^{In the result' the appeal is allowed' The ludgment and} Decree^{of the first AppellateCourt is set asideand Judgment and} Decree^{of the trial Court are restored '}

¶67

Consequently'^{Miscellaneous applications if any' are closed'}

¶68

No costs.

¶69

Sd/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

'o^{.,. an" lX Additionar District and sessions Judge, Sircilla, Karimnagar District} (with records, if anY) z. Yn"'pri".ipii.trni.ii^{ciuit Judge' Sircilla' Karimnagat} 5. o"i, ic iJsri^{K.Venumadhai,Advocatetol-u-g]^.} ;. il; 6c i;^{5;iV.v.Rrr"n, Rao,Advocate[oPUC]}

¶74

Two CD^CoPies

t^.--

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/04,/20:23

JUDGMENT

' ; S I.\I;
lr^:. ,,..
,/;;:
..j'
i
?[/-3
, t' ltt
G.

¶81

SA.No.16 of 2021

¶82

ALLOWING THE I;A IA/ITHOUT COSTS.

¶83

¶84

[³²⁵⁸ I

¶85

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶86

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶87

PRESENT

¶88

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶89

SECOND APPEAL NO: 16 OF 2021

¶90

Between:

¶91

Rapelli Satyanarayana, S/o. Parsharam, Age 58 Years, Occ Business, Rl/o.H.No. 8-7-140, Nehrunagar, Sircilla Town and Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶92

Rapelli Bhoolaxmi, Wo. Satyanarayana, Age 53 Years, Occ Housewife, Fi/o.H.No. 8-7-140, Nehrunagar, Sircilla Town and Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District

¶93

...A''ELLANTS/ REspoNDENTs/ DEFENDANTS

¶94

AND

¶95

Dontha Devadas, S/o. Bhoomaiah, Age 58 years, Occ Business, Rl/o. Bhuvanarushi Nagar, Sircilla Proper and Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶96

.,RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF

¶97

Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 2810812020 made in AS No.33 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the lX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sircilla, preferred against the^judgment and decree in OS No.Bl of 2011 daled 1410612019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla.

¶98

ORDER: This Second Appeal coming on for hearing upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court and the Court of the First lnstance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.Venumadhav, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri V.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶99

This Court doth Order and decree as follows :

¶100

That this Second Appeal be and hereby is allowed by sefting aside the Judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and restoring the trial court's Judgment an decree; and

¶101

That there shall be no order as to costs in this Second Appeal.

¶102

Sd/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR

¶103

//TRUE COPYII

¶104

SECTION OFFICER

¶105

To 1. The lX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sircilla, Karimnangar. 2. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, Karimnagar.

¶106

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:'10/04/2023

DECREE

SA.No.16 ot 2021

ALLOWING THE SA ['ITHOUT COSTS.

¶113

Yr. t{
*r>
').-'

Rapelli Satyanarayana v. Dontha Devadas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rapelli Satyanarayana v. Dontha Devadas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Max Hypermarket (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Renu Kumari Agarwal

Ramesh Chandra Soni Vs Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni

Bandari Tulja Bai, (Died) and 5 others Vs Shree Ballabh Vyas and another

D. Shravani Vs D. Praveen Kumar

J. Srinivasa Rao Vs J. Vittal Rao and 5 Ors.

Sri. Praveen Kumar Prabhala, Vs Pingle Vasundhara