The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. Sri Ranbir Singh Bagga

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B SYAMSUNDER SECOND APPEAL Nos. 309 & 319 OF 2011 SECOND APPEAL NO: 309 OF 2011 Appeal Under Section 100 Against Orders To Allow This Appeal With Costs By Upholding The Decree And Judgement In O.S. No.34 Of 2005,Dated 24- 11-2006 On The File Of The Additional Civil Judge (Ftc), Nandyal Which Was Set Aside By The iii Additional Didtrict Judge Kurnool At Nandyal In As No. 11 Of 2007 Dated 29-10-2010. Between: Pasupuleti Janardhan Kumar,, S/o. Hussain Setty, Aged About 54 Years Reporter and Agriculturist, R/o. H.No. 4/67, Upstairs, Chandbada, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ...APPELLANT (APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF) AND Simha Ratnam Prasad,, S/o. Simha Yesuratnam,Aged About 37 Years Software Engineer, R/o. H.No. 5/24, Boleddulavari Street, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENT(RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT)

SECOND APPEAL NO: 309 OF 2011 Appeal Under Section 100 Against Orders To Allow This Appeal With Costs By Upholding The Decree And Judgement In O.S. No.34 Of 2005,Dated 24- 11-2006 On The File Of The Additional Civil Judge (Ftc), Nandyal Which Was Set Aside By The lii Additional Didtrict Judge Kurnool At Nandyal In As No 11 Of 2007 Dated 29-10-2010. Between: Pasupuleti Janardhan Kumar,, S/o. Hussain Setty, Aged About 54 Years Reporter and Agriculturist, R/o. H.No. 4/67, Upstairs, Chandbada, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ...APPELLANT(APPELLANT/DEFENDANT) AND Simha Ratnam Prasad,, S/o. Simha Yesuratnam,Aged About 37 Years Software Engineer, R/o. H.No. 5/24, Boleddulavari Street, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENTS(RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF) I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011 fSAMP.NO: 1037 OF 2011) Petition Under Section 151 Of CPC Praying That In The Circumstances Stated In The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition,The High Court May Be Pleased To Suspend The Operation Of The Judgement And Decree Dated 29.10.2010 In As No 6/2007 On The File Of The lii Additional District Judge,Kurnool At Nandyal Confirming The Judgement Of The Trail Court In Os No 175/2004 Dated 24.11.2006 On The File Of The Additional Senior Civil Judge (Ftc),Nandyal,Pending Disposal Appeal. Of The Counsel for the Appellant : SRI A VEERASWAMY Counsel for the Respondents : SRI S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY The Court made the following JUDGEMENT :

(BSSJ S.A.3Vbs.309 and319 of 2011 1 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER S.As,Nos.309 and 319 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: As appellants in both appeals are one and the same and common trial has been conducted in O.S.No.175 of 2004 and O.S.No.34 of 2005, a common judgment is pronounced in both these appeals. 2. The defendant in O.S.No.175 of 2004 and plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 2005 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge Court (FTC) Nandyal, is the appellant herein in both the appeals. The plaintiff in O.S.No.175 of 2005 and defendant in O.S.No.34 of 2005 are the respondents in these appeals. The Second Appeal No. 309 of 2011 is directed against the decree 3. and judgment passed in A.S.No.11 of 2007 on the file of III Additional District Court, Kurnool, at Nandyal, which confirmed the decree and judgment of dismissal of the suit passed in 0.5.No.34 of 2005 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge Court (FTC) Nandyal. The said suit is filed by the appellant herein against the respondent for recovery of an amount said to be paid under Ex.BI receipt. The Second Appeal No. 319 of 2011 is directed against the decree 4. and judgment passed in A.S.No.6 of 2007 on the file of III Additional District Court, Kurnool, at Nandyal, which confirmed the decree and

<BSSJ S.A.9ios.309 and319 of 2011 2 judgment passed in O.S.No.175 of 2004 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of his promissory note debt. 5. In both the suits, learned trial Judge conducted common trial and pronounced common judgment. Against which appellant herein preferred two separate first appeals which were dismissed confirming the decrees and judgments passed by the trial Court. 6. The appellant herein and respondent in S.A.No.319 of 2011 Mr.Simha Yesu Ratnam and respondent in S.A.No.309 of 2011 Mr.Simha Ratnam Prasad, herein after will be called as defendant and plaintiff for the sake of brevity and convenience. 7. The plaintiff in O.S.No.175 of 2004 Mr.S.Yesu Ratnam, who is father of defendant in O.S.No.34 of 2005 Mr.Simha Ratnam Prasad, filed suit against the defendant Mr.P.Janardhan Kumar (appellant herein) for recovery of his promissory note debt with interest amounting to Rs.2,77,950/-. Whereas, defendant (appellant herein) filed O.S.No,34 of 2005 against son of plaintiff Mr.Simha Ratnam Prasad, for recovery of Ex.BI amount paid under a receipt, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. 8. It is the contention of the plaintiff in O.S.No.175 of 2004 that defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 11.11.1998 from him agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and subsequently paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 25.10.2001, but failed to pay

‘BSSJ S.A-^os.309 and319 of 2011 3 the balance amount inspite of repeated demands, due to that he filed suit for recovery of Ex.A2 promissory note debt. The defendant in 0.5.No.175 of 2004 (appellant herein), who also filed O.S.No.34 of 2005 against the son of the plaintiff filed written statement which averments are similar to the averments in the plaint in O.S.No.34 of 2005. It is the contention of the defendant that he borrowed amount from the plaintiff under Ex.A2 promissory note and paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and endorsed the same on Ex.A2 which is marked as Ex.A3. The main contention of the defendant is that marriage of plaintiff’s son i.e. defendant in O.S.No.34 of 2005 was performed on 13.12.2003. The defendant submits that he sent a word to the plaintiff to come to his residence to collect the amount to discharge Ex.A2 promissory note debt on 10.12.2003 for which plaintiff sent his son Mr.Ratnam Prasad, who is defendant in O.S.No.34 of 2005 on 11.12.2003 to receive money from the defendant as he is busy with marriage works. Then defendant said to be paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the son of the plaintiff by name Mr.Simha Ratnam Prasad, in the presence of two attestors and then he executed Ex.BT receipt on the ground that he could not bring Ex.A2 suit promissory note and informed him that after receiving remaining balance amount, he will deliver the suit promissory note. The defendant also pleaded that he purchased agricultural land which he is cultivating due to that he is an agriculturist and entitled to benefit

<BSSJ S.A.!Kos.309 and319 of 2011 4 under Act 4 of 1938. For which, the contention of the plaintiff is that defendant purchased land for the purpose of doing real estate business, who never cultivated the land and he is an income tax assessee, not entitled to the benefits of Act 4 of 1938. The trial Court basing on the pleadings in both the suits, framed 9. necessary issues. The defendant commenced the trial, who examined himself as 10. D.W.1 and also examined the attestors of Ex.BI as D.Ws.2 and 3 and defendant in O.S.No.34 of 2005 was examined as D.W.4. The plaintiff in O.S.No.175 of 2004 was examined as P.W.1, Ex.AI to Ex.A3 and Ex.BI to Ex.BIO were marked. The defendant said to be lodged a report against the plaintiff for the offence under Section 420 I PC, which was quashed by this Court as per orders in Criminal Petition No.3913 of 2006 dated 26.02.2006 which was marked as Ex.CI. The plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 2005 i.e. appellant herein send for the register containing the signature of Mr.S.Ratnam Prasad, which is marked as Ex.XI and his signatures as Ex.X2 to Ex.X4. 11. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant herein, i.e. O.S.No.34 of 2005 and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff i.e. O.S.No.175 of 2004. 12.

‘SSSJ S.A-^os.309 and319 of 2011 5 «5 Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant presented two separate appeals, which referred supra. 13. Both appeals were independently heard and dismissed by the first appellate Court confirming the decrees and judgments passed in both the suits by the trial Court. 14. 15. In these circumstances, the present second appeals are presented by the defendant in O.S.No.175 of 2004 and plaintiff in O.S.No.34 of 2005. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr.A.Veera Swamy, as well as learned counsel for the respondent Mr.S.Lakshminaraya na 16. Reddy. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that appellant discharged the debt due to the plaintiff in 0.5.No.175 of 2004 by paying a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to his son, who also issued Ex.BI receipt. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that there is a clear finding of the trial Court that defendant is an agriculturist, due to that interest has to be claimed at M% per annum on Rs. 1,10,000/- and subsequent interest shall not be more than 6% per annum as per Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure. He prays to allow the appeal.

‘BSSJ S.Jl.Jios.309 and319 of2011 6 The learned counsel for the plaintiff in O.S.No.175 of 2004 and 18. defendant in O.S.No.34 of 2005 would submit that appellant herein is not an agriculturist, who is doing real estate buisness, for that purpose, he purchased lands and sold the same which also proved by the plaintiff by filing Ex.AI sale deed. He would further submit that though the appellant herein is having agricultural lands, he cannot be treated as an agriculturist as he is not cultivating the land and doing real estate business, who is also an income tax assessee. He relied on the following precedent law: 1. N.M.Veerappa - Appellant Vs.Canara Bank and others - Respondents,' wherein it is held that Section 34 does not apply to mortgage suits, which are covered exclusively under Order 34 Rule 11 CPC. 2. Central Bank of India - Petitioner Vs. Ravindra and Others - Respondents^, wherein it is explained penal interest and capitalisation of interest by banking undertakings. 3. Syndicate Bank, Mudisubba, Ananthapur District Vs. M.Venkatesu - Respondent^, wherein it is held that in respect of commercial transaction, in calculating interest, the Court has to take into account not only principal amount but also the interest accrued ' 1998(2) see 317 ' 2002(1) see 367 ^ 2003(1) ALD 73 1

(BSSJ S.AMos.309 and319 of2011 1 thereon till the date of institution of the suit and in a suit filed by a bank against a person who defaulted in repayment of the loan, Court should not restrict the interest to 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. 4. Dommeti Venkanna Vs. Andhra Bank Limited^, wherein it is held that merely because an agriculturist is having incidentally the avocation other than the agriculture, he is not deprieved of his irght of relief under the Act. But, each case is to be considered in the light of avocation which a citizen is carrying on. In the said case, the Hon’ble High Court held that as appellant has been carrying on the avocation as an abkari contractor and for that purpose he obtained the loan from the bank, he is not entitled to benefit under Agricultural Reliefs Act. 19. These second appeals were admitted on the following substantial questions of law framed in S.A.No.319 of 2011, which are as follows: 1. Whether the Courts below are not erred in referring to ‘the holder in due course of a promissory note’, which is not warranted? It ought to have seen that in the instant case, the plaintiff and defendant are co brothers and in view of the immediate requirement, the defendant paid the amounts to the plaintiff’s son i.e., his own nephew for which he passed a receipt in the presence of D.Ws.2 and 3. The provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act with reference to the holder in due course are not attracted. “ 1988 ALT (2) 746 r-

(BSSJ S.JIMos.309 and319 of 2011 8 2. Whether the Courts below are not erred in ignoring the provisions of It ought to have seen that the defendant is an agriculturist and is entitled to the benefits of the said Act. 3. Whether the Courts below are not erred in passing a decree for interest from the date of the promissory note? Act 4 of 1938? As per Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, this Court can 20. interfere with the Judgment of the Appellate Court, if it is satisfied that case involves a substantial question of law. A finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court is binding on this Court, unless there is any error of law in such finding. In the present case, there is no dispute that appellant herein 21. admitted borrowing money from the plaintiff under Ex.A2 promissory note and also part payment under Ex.A2, but pleaded discharge by paying amount to the son of the plaintiff after obtaining Ex.BI receipt. Both Courts have concurrently held that appellant herein failed to prove Ex.BI receipt and learned trial Judge, who compared admitted signatures of son of plaintiff in Ex.BI with that of admitted signatures in Ex.x2 to x4 came to the conclusion that there is a variance which needs no interference. The learned first appellate Judge also discussed at length with regard to the plea of discharge pleaded by the appellant herein and held that he failed to prove the same. As per Section 8 of Negotiable Instruments Act, holder is “The 22. holder” of a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque means any

<BSSJ S.A.0^os.309 and319 of 2011 9 person entitled in his own name to the possession thereof and to receive or recover the amount due thereon from the parties thereto. 23. In the present case, the appellant herein failed to prove Ex.B1 receipt said to be issued by the son of the plaintiff and there is no legally acceptable explanation on the part of the appellant why he paid amount to the son of the plaintiff without demanding him for endorsement of his alleged payment on the back of Ex.A2 promissory note, which he previously done while paying Rs. 15,000/- towards partial discharge of Ex.A2 promissory note debt. Both Courts have concurrently held that appellant herein is liable to pay amount due to the plaintiff under Ex.A2 promissory note as he failed to prove the partial discharge of suit debt to plaintiff under Ex.BI receipt. 24. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant herein filed Ex.B7 to Ex.BIO to show that he is an agriculturist having agricultural land, due to that interest claimed by the plaintiff @ 24% per annum on Rs. 1,10,000/- is not legal. Now, it would be beneficial to quote definition of agriculturist as per Act IV of 1938. Section 3(2) of the said Act, describes agriculturist which reads as under: “3. Definitions. - In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, -

(BSSJ S.A.^os.309 and319 of2011 10 person means an individual and includes an undivided Hindu family; but does not include a body corporate, a charitable or religious institution or an unincorporated company or association; agriculturist means a person who (a) has a saleable interest in any agricultural or horticultural land in the Andhra area of the State of Andhra Pradesh, not being land situated within a municipality or cantonment, which is assessed by the State Government to land revenue (which shall be deemed to include peshkash and quit rent), or which is held free of tax under a grant made, confirmed or recognized by Government; or I. 11. (b) holds an interest in such land under a land holder under the Andhra Pradesh(Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908 as tenant, ryot or under tenure holder; or (c) r*] (d) holds a lease of such land from any person specified in sub clause (a), or (b) or is a sub lessee of such land; Provided that a person shall not be an agriculturist if he - A. has in both the financial years ending 31st March, 1938 been assessed to income tax under the [Indian Income tax Act, 1922 or under the income tax laws of any part of India which, immediately before the Istday of November 1956, was comprised in a Part B State or foreign Government; or B. has in all the four half years immediately preceding the 1st October, 1937 been assessed to profession tax on a half yearly income of more than six hundred rupees derived from a profession other than agriculture under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Municipalities Act, 1920, the Cantonments Act, 1924, or any law governing municipal or local bodies in any other part of India or any foreign State in the continent of India or under the Andhra Pradesh r-.-xcr-'--

<BSSJ S.JI.:N'os.309 and319 of 2011 11 V (Andhra Area) District Boards Act, 1920 in a panchayat which was a union before the 26th August 1930; or C. has within the two years immediately preceding the 1st October 1937, been assessed to property or house tax in respect of buildings or lands other than agricultural lands, under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Municipalities Act, 1920 the Cantonment Act, 1924, or any law governing municipal or local bodies in any other part of India or under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Boards Act, 1920, in a panchayat which was a union before the 26th August, 1930, provided that the aggregate annual rental value of such buildings and lands, whether let out or in the occupation of the owner, is not less than Rs 600; or D. is a landholder of an estate under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908, or of a share or portion thereof, whether setely registered or not, in respect of which estate, share or portion any sum exceeding five hundred rupees is payable as peshkash, or any sum exceeding on hundred rupees is payable under one or more of the following heads, namely, quit rent, jodi, kattubadi, poruppu or other dues of a like nature ” As per Section 13 of Act IV of 1938 rate of interest payable by an 25. agriculturist on loans, Court has to scaled down the interest which shall not be more than 6^4 % per annum, simple interest, now it is 121/2 % per annum. Now, it would be beneficial to extract the discussion of learned trial Judge with regard to plea of appellant/defendant as an agriculturist at additional issue framed on 27.09.2006, which reads as under: “The defendant pleaded that he is an agriculturist and hence he is entitled for the benefits of Act IV of 1938. The plaintiff contended

‘BSSJ S.Jl.!Nbs.309 and319 of 2011 12 that the lands were purchased for purpose of Real Estate Business and hence the defendant cannot be terms as ‘‘agriculturist”. He has also pleaded that the defendant is an income tax assessee. But the plaintiff has not proved that the defendant is an income tax assesse. defendant himself admitted that he holds PAN Card. The definition of ‘Agriculturist’ as laid down in Section 3(ii)(a) of Act IV of 1938 is as follows: The (a) has a saleable interest in ny agriculturl or horticultural land (Andhra Area of the State of A.P.) not being land situated within Municipality or contonment, which is assessed by the (State) Government to land revenue (which shall be deemed to include Peshkash and quit- rent), or which is held free of tax under a grant made, confirmed or recognized by Government; or --- Exs.BJ and B8 show that the defendant purchased agricultural lands. The plaintiff marked Ex.AI to prove that P.Janardhan Kumar executed sale deed on 10.01.2006 in favour of K.Bala Thirupathiah in respect of Ac.0.02 cents. Relying on this document, the Counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant purchased the land for purpose of Real Estate business. The defendant that Ac.1.00 out of Ac.7.00 purchased by him under Exs.B7 and B8 was sold to one Prasad and at his instance he executed Ex.AI and some other documents. Admittedly, the defendant purchased the lands under sale deeds dated 06.09.1991, 05.08.1993 and hence he possessed some agricultural lands on the date of execution of suit pronote. If any person has got saleable interest in agricultural lands, he can be called as an “agriculturist”. The defendant filed Exs.B9 and BIO pattadar pass books to show that he was in possession of some agricultural lands. If they are useful for house sites, it cannot be considered that the defendant is not entitled for the benefits of Act IV of 1938, merely because the lands have become useful for house sites at present. ” The finding of the learned trial Judge is that appellant herein 26. who is defendant in O.S.No.175 of 2004, is an agriculturist entitled to

(BSSJ S.J^.9^os.309 and319 of 2011 13 V the benefits under Act IV of 1938 which finding also confirmed by the learned appellate Judge. No cross appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the said finding. The learned trial Judge in spite of finding that appellant herein is an agriculturist, decreed the suit with proportionate costs for Rs. 1,93,975/- with interest at 12% per annum on Rs. 1,10,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of realisation. Though interest claimed by the plaintiff at 24% per annum has been reduced to 12% per annum, the learned trial Judge has not specifically stated the same in his judgment, but decreed the suit for Rs.1,93,975/- only, though the suit claim is for Rs.2,77,950/- which shows that learned trial Judge has reduced the interest from 24% per annum to 12% per annum after considering the fact that appellant herein, who is defendant in O.S.No.175 of 2004 is an agriculturist. 27. As per Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under: (1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent, per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit:

<BSSJ S.AMos.309 and319 of 2011 14 Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent, per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. (2) Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefor shall not lie. 28. A perusal of Section 34 CPC, which makes it clear that Court shall not award further interest not exceeding 6% per annum on principal sum from the date of decree to the date of payment or to such earlier date as the court thinks fit. As there is a clear finding of the trial Court confirmed by the first appellate Court that the appellant herein is agriculturist, it cannot be said that Ex.A2 transaction between the appellant and plaintiff is commercial transaction, due to that awarding interest by the trial Judge @ 12% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation is not correct in view of Section 34 of CPC. The trial Court ought to have order interest @ 12% per Rs. 1,10,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of decree, and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation. The an annum on ratio laid down in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent are not applicable to the facts of the present case which are

(BSSJ S.A.9{os.309 and319 of 2011 15 V rendered in respect of mortgage suits and while disposing the debt borrowed from public sector banks by the persons, who committed default. Therefore, the interest awarded by the trial Court, confirmed by the first appellate Court in O.S.No.175 of 2004 on Rs.1,10,000/- @ 12% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation is hereby modified that plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,93,975/- with interest at 12% per annum on Rs.1,10,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation. In view of discussions in preceding paras, the subsequent question 29. of law No.1 framed in S.A.No.319 of 2011 in the grounds of appeal is answered against the appellant and substantial questions of law Nos.2 and 3 framed in the grounds of appeal in S.A.No.319 of 2011 are answered in favour of the appellant against the plaintiff in O.S.No.175 of 2004. In the result. Second Appeal No.309 of 2011 is dismissed. Second 30. Appeal No.319 of 2011 is allowed in part reducing the rate of interest from 12% per annum to 6% per annum from the date of decree till the The plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of date of realisation. Rs.1,93,975/- with interest at 12% per annum on Rs.1,10,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation. In the

<BSS,J S.A.9^os.309 and319 of 2011 16 ‘ *1 circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. The Interim Orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. SD/- P.VENKATA RAMANA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// se6tk5n^fficer To, 1. The Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC),Nandyal,Kurnool District (With Records) 2. The III Additional District Judge,Kurnool At Nandyal. 3. OneCCto SRI. A VEERASWAMY Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC To Section Officer,VR Section,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravathi [OUT] 6. THREE CD COPIES TAC

HIGH COURT DATED:22/03/2024 JUDGEMENT + DECREE SA.NO.309&319OF 2011 DISMISSING THE SA NO.309 OF 2011 DISMISSING THE SA N0.319 OF 2011

/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH . TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B SYAMSUNDER SECOND APPEAL NO: 309 OF 2011 Between: Pasupuleti Janardhan Kumar, Agriculturist, R/o. H.No. 4/67, Upstairs, Chandbada, Nandyal, Kurnool District. S/o. Hussain Setty, Reporter and ...APPELLANT(APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF) AND Simha Ratnam Prasad,, S/o. Simha Yesuratnam, Software Engineer, R/o H.No. 5/24, Boleddulavari Street, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENT(RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT) Appeal Under Section 100 Against Orders To Allow This Appeal With Costs By Upholding The Decree And Judgement In O.S. No.34 Of 2005,Dated 24-11-2006 On The File Of The Additional Civil Judge (Ftc), Nandyal Which Was Set Aside By The lii Additional District Judge Kurnool At Nandyal In As No. 11 Of 2007 Dated 29-10-2010. Appeal Coming On For Hearing And Upon Perusing The Memorandam Of Appeal,The Judgement And Decree Of The Lower Court And The Material Evidence On Record And Upon Hearing The Arguments Of Sri A Veeraswamy,Advocate, Representing L.Lakshminarayana,Advocate For The Sole Respondent For The Appellant And Sri

THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS : 1. That The Second Appeal No.309 Of 2011 Be And Is Hereby Dismissed 2. That Second Appeal No.319 Of 2011 Be And Hereby Is Allowed In Part 3. That The Rate Of Interest Is Be And Hereby Reduced From 12% Per Annum To 6% Per Annum From The Date Of Decree Till The Date Of Realisation 4. That The Plaintiff Is Entitled To Recover A Sum Of Rs.1,93,975/- With Interest At 12% Per Annum On Rs.1.10.000/- From The Date Of Plaint Till The Date Of Decree And Thereafter At 6% Per Annum From The Date Of Decree Till The Date Of Realisation 5. That There Shall Be No Order As To Costs. SD/- P.VENKATA RAM ANA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I I^GTTdNOFFICER S To. 1. The Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC),Nandyal,Krishna District 2. The III Additional District Judge,Kurnool At Nandyal 3. THREE CD COPIES TAC

HIGH COURT DATED;22/03/2024 ORDER SA.No.309 of 2011 ALLOWING THE SECOND APPEAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B SYAMSUNDER SECOND APPEAL NO: 319 OF 2011 Between: Pasupuleti Janardhan Kumar,, S/o. Hussain Setty, Reporter and Agriculturist, R/o. H.No. 4/67, Upstairs, Chandbada, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ...APPELLANT(APPELLANT/DEFENDANT) AND Simha Ratnam Prasad,, S/o. Simha Yesuratnam, Software Engineer, R/o. H.No. 5/24, Boleddulavari Street, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENT(RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT) Appeal Under Section 100 Against Orders To Allow This Appeal With Costs By Upholding The Decree And Judgement In O.S. No.34 Of 2005,Dated 24-11-2006 On The File Of The Additional Civil Judge (Ftc), Nandyal Which Was Set Aside By The lii Additional District Judge Kurnool At Nandyal In As No. 11 Of 2007 Dated 29-10-2010. LA. NO: 1 OF 2011 fSAMP.NO: 1037 OF 2011) Petition Under Section 151 Of CPC Praying That In The Circumstances Stated In The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition,The High Court May Be Pleased To Suspend The Operation Of The Judgement And Decree Dated 29.10.2010 In As No 6/2007 On The File Of The lii Additional District Judge,Kurnool At Nandyal Confirming The Judgement Of The Trail Court In Os No 175/2004 Dated 24.11.2006 On The File Of The Additional Senior Civil Judge (Ftc),Nandyal,Pending Disposal Of The Appeal.

Appeal Coming On For Hearing And Upon Perusing The Memorandam Of Appeal,The Judgement And Decree Of The Lower Court And The Material Evidence On Record And Upon Hearing The Arguments Of Sri A Veeraswamy, Advocate, Representing For The Appellant And Sri L.Lakshminarayana,Advocate For The Sole Respondent THIS COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS : 1. That The Second Appeal No.309 Of 2011 Be And Is Hereby Dismissed 2. That Second Appeal No.319 Of 2011 Be And Hereby Is Allowed In Part 3. That The Rate Of Interest Is Be And Hereby Reduced From 12% Per Annum To 6% Per Annum From The Date Of Decree Till The Date Of Realisation 4. That The Plaintiff Is Entitled To Recover A Sum Of Rs.1,93,975/- With Interest At 12% Per Annum On Rs.1.10.000/- From The Date Of Plaint Till The Date Of Decree And Thereafter At 6% Per Annum From The Date Of Decree Till The Date Of Realisation 5. That There Shall Be No Order As To Costs. SD/- P.VENKATA RAMANA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 4. The Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC),Nandyal,Krishna District 5. The III Additional District Judge,Kurnool At Nandyal 6. THREE CD COPIES TAC

HIGH COURT DATED:22/03/2024 ORDER SA.No.309 of 2011 ALLOWING THE SECOND APPEAL