Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 116 (AP)

Methuku Ravindranath v. Sure Krishnamurthy

2013-02-18

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2013
JUDGMENT : The appellant is the sole plaintiff in O.S.No.12 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur. He filed the suit against the respondent for recovery of Rs.1,84,732/-, on the basis of a promissory note said to have been executed by the respondent on 01.07.2000. It was pleaded that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, on that date, agreeing to repay the amount, with interest at 18%, per annum. It was also pleaded that the respondent made part payment of a sum of Rs.5,000/-, on 21.05.2003, and made an endorsement on the reverse of the promissory note. The appellant stated that though he got issued a notice, on 30.05.2005, the amount was not repaid by the respondent. 2. The respondent filed a written statement, denying the very allegation as to borrowing of the amount and execution of the promissory note. He stated that he is a trader in medicals and that in the year 2000, he purchased medicines worth about Rs.2,00,000/- from one Mr.Pandurangaiah of Pileru and for repayment of that amount, he executed two promissory notes of Rs.1,00,000/-, each. He stated that the amount covered by those two promissory notes was paid in the year 2003, in the presence of M/s. J.Subbaraja and S.Murali, and when he made a request to Pandurangaiah to return the promissory notes, the latter replied that the promissory notes and cheques are mixed up with other papers and that he would return them as soon as he locates them. He submitted that the suit appears to have been filed by the appellant in collusion with Pandurangaiah and that similar exercise was done by one Mr.G.Adinarayana, who filed O.S.No.94 of 2005 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. The respondent got amended the written statement, and he stated that the blank in the promissory note executed by him in favour of Pandurangaiah was filled with the name of the appellant and that there is collusion between Pandurangaiah and the appellant. 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment dated 30.11.2007. Thereupon, the appellant filed A.S.No.20 of 2008 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The appeal was dismissed on 27.07.2009. Hence, this second appeal. 4. Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that once the signature on Ex.A.1 was found to be that of the respondent, the suit ought to have been decreed. Thereupon, the appellant filed A.S.No.20 of 2008 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The appeal was dismissed on 27.07.2009. Hence, this second appeal. 4. Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that once the signature on Ex.A.1 was found to be that of the respondent, the suit ought to have been decreed. He contends that in stead of drawing the presumption as provided for under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have denied the relief, on the ground that some of the blanks in the promissory note were filled with typewriting. According to the learned counsel, the fact that a portion of the document is written through mechanical typing, cannot lead to an inference as to alteration of the contents. 5. Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that not only the appellant had materially altered the promissory note, by filling certain gaps, but also has forged it by writing the so-called acknowledgement, through Ex.A.4. 6. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. “Whether the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.07.2000 and executed suit pronote? 2. Whether suit pronote came into existence in the circumstances pleaded in the written statement? 3. Whether the defendant paid Rs.5,000/- on 21.05.2003 and endorsed the same on the pronote? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit reliefs? 5. To what relief?” 7. The appellant deposed as PW.1 and he has also examined PW.2 stated to be a witness to the document. The promissory note was marked as Ex.A.1; the endorsement, dated 21.05.2003, thereon, as Ex.A.4; copy of legal notice issued, on 30.05.2005, as Ex.A.2 and acknowledgement thereof as Ex.A.3. On behalf of respondent, DWs.1 to 5 were examined. Out of them, DW.4 is a Handwriting Expert, who filed the report marked as Exs.X.1 and 2; and DW.5 is an advocate-commissioner, who filed the report under Ex.C.1. The suit was dismissed by recording a finding that the respondent did not borrow any amount from the appellant. In A.S.No.20 of 2008 filed by the appellant, the lower Appellate Court framed only one point for its consideration, viz., “Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court can be supported in law?” and dismissed the appeal. 8. The suit was dismissed by recording a finding that the respondent did not borrow any amount from the appellant. In A.S.No.20 of 2008 filed by the appellant, the lower Appellate Court framed only one point for its consideration, viz., “Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court can be supported in law?” and dismissed the appeal. 8. The suit filed by the appellant was the one for recovery of money, on the basis of a promissory note. The facts, however, assumed complexity, with each stage that the suit has passed through. While according to the appellant, the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and executed the promissory note, the respondent flatly denied it. In addition to the denial, the respondent stated that he executed two promissory notes for Rs.1,00,000/-, each, in favour of one Mr.Pandurangaiah with certain blanks and even after payment of the amount, the promissory notes were not returned by pleading some excuse. 9. Though the respondent did not dispute the signature on the promissory note, on the first page, he flatly denied the making of signature on the reverse, stated to be on the eve of making part payment. As rightly suggested, the trial Court has sent the documents for examination of an Expert. DW.5, the Handwriting Expert, found that the signature in Ex.A.4, which was marked as Ex.Q3, was not that of the respondent. The record also discloses that part of Ex.A.1, promissory note, is in a printed form and some of the blanks, other than the one pertaining to the name of the borrower are filled with handwriting. The Expert found that the handwriting in the blanks (Q1) and the signature (Q2) on Ex.A.1 are that of the respondent. Once the borrower has filled the blanks in the promissory note, it is expected that he writes his name in the blank relating to borrower. 10. However, in the instant case, the name of the borrower was typewritten in Telugu. The appellant failed to explain this extraordinary situation. The respondent filed a certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary of the concerned village, marked as Ex.B.1, to the effect that there is no type writing institute, that too, with Telugu typewriters, in their village. 10. However, in the instant case, the name of the borrower was typewritten in Telugu. The appellant failed to explain this extraordinary situation. The respondent filed a certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary of the concerned village, marked as Ex.B.1, to the effect that there is no type writing institute, that too, with Telugu typewriters, in their village. Even if that cannot be given a serious consideration, the finding on Ex.A.4 and the extraordinary situation, namely the other blanks being filled by the respondent, but not his name, would clearly throw a doubt on the genuinity of the transaction. 11. The trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have examined the issues in detail with reference to the decided cases and pronounced judgments based on correct principles of law. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. 12. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. The miscellaneous petition filed in this second appeal shall also stand disposed of.