Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 984 (AP)

Dunabaina Venkata Rao v. Kappisetti Nagaratnam

2001-09-06

P.S.NARAYANA

body2001
( 1 ) THE Revision is filed by the Revision petitioner-defendant as against the judgment in S. C. No. 54/97 on the file of senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. ( 2 ) THE case of the respondent-plaintiff is that the Revision Petitioner-defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,000/- on 4-11-1994 and executed a promissory note Ex. A-1 and inspite of repeated demands and despite the issue of notice, the office copy of which is marked as Ex. A-2 and the acknowledgment is marked as Ex. A-3, the amount was not repaid and hence the suit was instituted. The Revision Petitioner-defendant filed written statement stating that the plaintiff is Ex-Municipal Councillor and she used to run chit fund business and he is a technician in Municipal Water Works department and he joined in the said chit and the plaintiff used to obtain signatures in blank promissory notes as security for the chit amount and he fell due some amount, while so on one day, the respondent-plaintiff came to Municipal Water tank area and demanded to pay the balance of chit amount and he paid a sum of Rs. 900/- in the presence of Boddu Appa Rao, who was examined as D. W-2 who is also another municipal employee and also a chit member. He had demanded for the return of blank promissory notes, but unfortunately later differences arose between the plaintiff and defendant and hence the suit was instituted. The plaintiff had examined herself as P. W-1 and the attestor was examined as P. W-2 and Exs. A-1 to A-4. Ex. A-1 is the promissory note. Ex. A-2 is the office copy of the notice issued by P. W-1 to D. W-1 and Ex. A-3 is the postal acknowledgement and Ex. A-4 is dated 3-4-1997, the reply notice issued by the defendant. On behalf of the defendant, d. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined arid Exs. B-1, note book issued by the plaintiff was marked. The Court below had framed the following points for consideration:- (1) Whether the suit promissory note is true and if so is it devoid of consideration? (2) To what relief ? On behalf of the defendant, d. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined arid Exs. B-1, note book issued by the plaintiff was marked. The Court below had framed the following points for consideration:- (1) Whether the suit promissory note is true and if so is it devoid of consideration? (2) To what relief ? the Court below after detailed appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence in paragraphs 6 to 11 had arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount and accordingly decreed the suit and aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful tenant (?) had filed the present Civil Revision Petition. ( 3 ) SRI Ajay Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner had vehemently contended that the Court below had not properly appreciated Ex. B-1 and except some stray discussion there is no proper discussion relating to Ex. B-1. Apart from it, d. W-2 is an independent witness and his evidence should have been believed by the court below and discarding his evidence on the ground that it is vague, is totally erroneous and unsustainable. ( 4 ) SRI Satyanarayana, the learned counsel representing the respondent had submitted that the suit claim was clearly proved by marking Ex. A-1 and also the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the Court below had given cogent reasons why it was not inclined to believe the evidence of D. W-1 and D. W-2 and hence the Civil Revision petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) I had gone through the evidence of p. W-1, P. W-2 and also D. W-1 and D. W-2. Perusing the material available on record, I am satisfied that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned Judgment since the defendant had admitted his signature in ex. A-1 and in fact passing of consideration also had been proved by examining P. Ws. 1 and 2. The Court below was not inclined to believe Ex. B-1 and detailed reasons had been recorded at paragraph-9 of the impugned Judgment. But however, one boddu Appa Rao, D. W-2, had deposed that payment of Rs. 900/- was made in his presence. The total evidence of D. W-2 was disbelieved though he is an independent witness on the ground that the evidence is vague. It is the specific case of the Revision petitioner-defendant that he made a payment of Rs. But however, one boddu Appa Rao, D. W-2, had deposed that payment of Rs. 900/- was made in his presence. The total evidence of D. W-2 was disbelieved though he is an independent witness on the ground that the evidence is vague. It is the specific case of the Revision petitioner-defendant that he made a payment of Rs. 900/-, but however, though there is oral evidence of D. W-2 in this regard, his evidence was discarded without assigning any valid reasons. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below should have deducted the payment of Rs. 900/- made by the Revision petitioner-defendant to the respondent-plaintiff. This aspect of the matter has to be examined in the light of the intimacy of the parties. The Revision Petitioner being an employee in Municipality and the respondent being at a particular point of time, the Municipal Councillor. In view of these facts and circumstances, I am inclined to believe the evidence of D. W-2 coupled with the evidence of D. W-1 to the extent of payment of Rs. 900/- made by the Revision petitioner-defendant to the respondent-plaintiff. In view of the foregoing discussion, I confirm the impugned judgment in all particulars, except modifying the Judgment to the tune of rs. 900/-, the payment made by the defendant to the plaintiff. The Civil revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent of Rs. 900/- (Rupees nine hundred only) which was, paid by the Revision petitioner-defendant to the respondent-plaintiff and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed relating to the rest of the claim. ( 6 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. However, in the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.