Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1532 (AP)

P. Samba Siva Rao v. S Janardhana Rao

2024-11-06

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2024
JUDGMENT : The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19-9-2003 in O.S.No.17 of 2000 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District. The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,89,084/- being the amount of principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 13-02-1997 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff’s transferor for Rs.1,10,000/- payable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs. 2. The case of the plaintiff as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows: It is pleaded that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- from one Talasila Srinivasa Rao on 13-02-1997 for the purpose of the marriage of his sister in Repalle agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum with yearly rests either to the said Srinivasa Rao or to his order when demanded and the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the said Srinivasa Rao on the same day. The defendant failed to repay the suit promissory note debt to the said Srinivasa Rao in spite of several demands made by him. The said Talasila Srinivasa Rao required money and hence he received a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- from the plaintiff on 15-12-1999 and endorsed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Repalle, signed the endorsement and delivered the promissory note to the plaintiff at Repalle. The plaintiff got issued a registered notice through his advocate on 07-02-2000 to the defendant. Having received the same, the defendant kept quiet. Hence, the suit. 3. Brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows: It is contended that the plaintiff had never paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to the defendant under the suit promissory note dated 13-02-1997 and the defendant never received the said amount. The plaintiff himself was not present at the time of execution of the suit promissory note. The defendant’s mother died about 10 years back, leaving two sons and a daughter. The defendant’s father was looking after the education of his children and their welfare. The defendant is educated up to Bachelor of Engineering Degree and employed in Dr. Reddy Laboratories, Hyderabad, at the time of the suit promissory note. His sister is a Post Graduate in the year 1997 and his father was negotiating to settle alliance to his daughter. The defendant’s father was looking after the education of his children and their welfare. The defendant is educated up to Bachelor of Engineering Degree and employed in Dr. Reddy Laboratories, Hyderabad, at the time of the suit promissory note. His sister is a Post Graduate in the year 1997 and his father was negotiating to settle alliance to his daughter. The scribe of promissory note one Kolli Koteswara Rao is the defendant’s maternal uncle. His sister’s husband is Yarlagadda Butchi Rao, who is the plaintiff’s brother. The said Koteswara Rao, his two brothers and Yarlagadda Butchi Rao prevailed upon the defendant to settle the alliance for his sister with a person of their choice stating that his father will not perform the marriage of his sister at all and posing as well-wishers, they settled the alliance with one M.R.R. Prasad, a native of Uppalapadu. At that time, the above persons had taken two promissory notes from the defendant on 13-02-1997, one in favour of the plaintiff and another as additional security on the same date in favour of one Talasila Srinivasa Rao and that not a single paise was paid to him by the plaintiff under the suit promissory note. There are no attestors at the time of execution of the suit promissory note. Hence, the suit may be dismissed. 4. Based upon the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the suit pronote has come into existence as mentioned in para No.3 of written statement ? (2) Whether the payment pleaded by defendant is true and valid ? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount ? and (4) To what relief ? 5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 are marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 is examined and no documents are marked. 6. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs for Rs.1,89,084/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on Rs.1,10,000/-. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court in decreeing the suit, the defendant has preferred the present appeal. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court in decreeing the suit, the defendant has preferred the present appeal. 8. Heard Sri N. Sreeramaa Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant and Sri P. Rishyendra Sai, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff. 9. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and he would further contend that the Court below should have held that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and it was obtained as additional security and he would further contend that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge may be set aside by allowing the appeal. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned trial Judge and that the appeal may be dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. 11. Now, the points for determination in the present appeal are: (1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant ? (2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? and (3) To what extent ? 12. Point No.1: Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant ? The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- from one Talasila Srinivasa Rao on 13-02-1997 for the purpose of marriage of his sister in Repalle and agreed to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum with yearly rests either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and subsequently in spite of repeated demands made by the said Srinivasa Rao, the defendant failed to pay the same and the said Srinivasa Rao required money and that he received a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- from the plaintiff on 15-12-1999 and he transferred the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Repalle and signed on the endorsement and delivered the promissory note to the plaintiff at Repalle. The plaintiff further pleaded that though he issued a legal notice dated 07-02-2000 to the defendant, having received the same, the defendant kept quiet and that he has constrained to file the suit. 13. The claim of the plaintiff is based on Ex.A-1 promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of one Talasila Srinivasa Rao. As stated supra, the said Talasila Srinivasa Rao received an amount of Rs1,40,000/- from the plaintiff on 15-12-1999 and he transferred the promissory note in the name of the plaintiff and also made a transfer endorsement. The defendant pleaded that he did not receive any consideration under the said promissory note and the said promissory note is brought into existence by the said Srinivasa Rao with the connivance of plaintiff. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. He reiterated his stand as per his respective pleadings. P.W.1 testified about the receipt of an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- from the plaintiff on 15-12-1999 by Talasila Srinivasa Rao and he also made an endorsement to that effect under Ex.A-2. The evidence of P.W.1 supports the case of the plaintiff. 14. In order to prove the suit promissory note, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.W.2, scribe of the suit promissory note. His evidence clearly goes to show about the borrowing of an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- by the defendant from Talasila Srinivasa Rao and also the execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note by the defendant in favour of the said Talasila Srinivasa Rao. The borrowing of amount by the defendant is clearly narrated by P.W.2 in his evidence. The evidence of P.W.2 testifies about the passing of consideration under Ex.A-1 promissory note from Talasila Srinivasa Rao to the defendant under Ex.A-1 promissory note. In his evidence in cross-examination, the evidence of P.W.2 is not at all disturbed on the material aspects of the case. 15. P.W.3 is the scribe of Ex.A-2 transfer endorsement. His evidence goes to show about the receipt of an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- by Talasila Srinivasa Rao from the plaintiff. Since the said Srinivasa Rao is in need of money and also transfer endorsement is made and P.W.3 made transfer endorsement on Ex.A-1 suit promissory note. It is not the case of the defendant that he is having enmity either with P.W.2 or with P.W.3. 16. Since the said Srinivasa Rao is in need of money and also transfer endorsement is made and P.W.3 made transfer endorsement on Ex.A-1 suit promissory note. It is not the case of the defendant that he is having enmity either with P.W.2 or with P.W.3. 16. The evidence on record clearly reveals that the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant under Ex.A-4, but for the reasons best known to the defendant, he did not choose to give any reply by denying the suit promissory note transaction. 17. Per contra, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1. He simply denied about the execution of suit promissory note. However, he admits in his evidence in cross-examination that the signature on Ex.A-1 promissory note as an executant belongs to him. As stated supra, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 supported the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff discharged his initial burden. Then, the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the evidence produced by the plaintiff. The defendant admits the signature on Ex.A-1 promissory note. For the reasons best known to the defendant, he did not adduce any other evidence except examining himself as D.W.1. 18. In civil cases, rival contentions and rival evidence will have to be considered, assessed, evaluated and weighed to be concluded whether the burden on the plaintiff has been discharged. In the case of R. Puthunainar Alhithan v. P.H. Pandian, (1996) 3 SCC 624 , the Apex Court held as follows: “An inference from the proved facts must be so probable that if the Court believes, from the proved facts, that the facts do exist, it must be held that the fact has been proved. The inference of proof of that fact could be drawn from the given objective facts, direct or circumstantial.” 19. To prove the passing of consideration under Ex.A-1 promissory note by the borrower from the original creditor under the promissory note, as stated supra, the evidence of P.W.3 also testifies about the receipt of an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- by the creditor under the said promissory note from the plaintiff and he also made a transfer endorsement. 20. In the case of Pratap Singh v. Rajinder Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1045 , the Apex Court held as follows: “10. 20. In the case of Pratap Singh v. Rajinder Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1045 , the Apex Court held as follows: “10. … … … There is no presumption, either in this country or anywhere else, that a witness, deposing on oath in the witness box, is untruthful unless he is shown to be, indubitably, not speaking the truth. On the other hand, the ordinary presumption is that a witness deposing solemnly on oath before a judicial tribunal is a witness of truth unless the contrary is shown.” 21. The defendant is unable to show any reason or circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 regarding the case of the plaintiff and also the defendant is unable to show any reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 and passing of consideration under Ex.A-1 promissory note. Though P.Ws.1 to 3 were subjected to cross-examination, nothing was elicited from them to discredit their testimony. In the present case, as stated supra, the presumption has not been referred by the defendant even by the preponderance of probabilities. 22. The defendant failed to prove the contentions which were taken in his written statement. The defendant was not successful in showing the improbability of the consideration and the defence taken by the defendant is not at all substantiated. 23. After careful consideration, the trial Court had adequately appreciated the evidence on record and there is no reason for this Court to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived by the trial Court. I believe the findings arrived by the trial Court are correct and no justifiable reasons have been shown by the appellant for arriving at different conclusions. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Point No.1 is answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. 24. Point No.2:- Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? Accordingly, in view of my findings on point No.1, I do not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. 25. Point No.3:- To what extent ? Accordingly, in view of my findings on point No.1, I do not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. 25. Point No.3:- To what extent ? Resultantly, the appeal suit is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 19-9-2003 in O.S.No.17 of 2000 passed by the learned trial Judge. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Each party do bear their own costs in the appeal.