Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 260 (AP)

B. Mareppa Yadav v. N. Balaiah

2024-02-16

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2024
JUDGMENT 1. The appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.173 of 2005 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kurnool. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows: On 10/5/2002, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 and agreed to repay with future interest at 24% per annum and executed the suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, in spite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the debt. On 16/4/2005, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice and the same was received by the defendant. The defendant failed to repay the debt nor give a reply. The defendant is not an agriculturist and therefore claimed the agreed rate of interest. Hence, the suit. 4. The defendant filed a written statement contending that he approached the plaintiff on 8/5/2002 for a loan of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 for his partnership business. The plaintiff agreed to lend money at 24% per annum. On 10/5/2002, the plaintiff wanted him to give a D.P. Note for Rs.3, 00, 000.00 and after scribing the pronote, he paid cash of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 and informed him that he would pay balance of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 within a week. After one week, when he approached the plaintiff, he did not pay the balance consideration of Rs.1, 00, 000.00. He paid interest regularly for Rs.2, 00, 000.00 up to the month of December, 2002. Further on 15/1/2003, he paid Rs.1, 00, 000.00 towards principal amount of Rs.2, 00, 000.00. Therefore, he is due principal amount of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 and interest on the said amount from January, 2003. The defendant belongs to agricultural family. Further, there was no attestor present and attested on the suit pronote. Subsequently, the plaintiff obtained the signature of attestor on the suit pronote. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial Court: (1) Whether the suit pronote dtd. 10/5/2002 is partly not supported by consideration to extent of one lakh as pleaded by the defendant for ? (2) Whether discharge-in-part of the suit pronote amount as pleaded by the defendant is true and correct ? 5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial Court: (1) Whether the suit pronote dtd. 10/5/2002 is partly not supported by consideration to extent of one lakh as pleaded by the defendant for ? (2) Whether discharge-in-part of the suit pronote amount as pleaded by the defendant is true and correct ? (3) Whether the defendant is an agriculturist and that the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff is to be scaled down ? (4) Whether the signatures of the attestors on the suit pronote were obtained subsequent to the date of execution of the suit proote by the defendant and if so what is the effect of it ? and (5) To what relief ? 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Ex.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-5. 7. After completion of trial and hearing arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs for Rs.5, 04, 000.00 with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. 8. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendant filed the present appeal questioning the finding given by the trial Court. 9. Heard Sri B.S. Venkata Ramesh, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and Sri V.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 10. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and came to wrong conclusion and decreed the suit. He would further contend that the trial Court ordered interest of 24% per annum from the date of suit pronote till the date of filing of the suit, the same has to be scaled down and he would further contend that the appellant is an agriculturist, therefore the interest has to be scaled down to 12% per annum. 11. Now, the points for determination are: (1) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? and (2) To what extent ? 12. Point No.1: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? 11. Now, the points for determination are: (1) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? and (2) To what extent ? 12. Point No.1: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 on 10/5/2002 and agreed to repay the same with future interest at 24% per annum and executed a suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the same. The plaintiff further pleaded that on 16/4/2005 he got issued a legal notice to the defendant and the same was received by the defendant but he kept quiet and not issued any reply notice to the legal notice issued by the plaintiff. 13. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 is the plaintiff and P.W.2 is one of the attestors in Ex.A-1 pronote. The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show about the borrowing of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 by the defendant on 10/5/2002 and so also execution of Ex.A-1 pronote by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. In cross-examination, it was suggested to P.Ws.1 and 2 by the learned counsel for defendant that the plaintiff was not present at the time of execution of Ex.A-1 and the signature of attestor was obtained subsequently. The said suggestion is denied by P.Ws.1 and 2. In cross- examination, the evidence of P.W.2 is not at all disturbed on material aspects of the case. 14. Another important circumstance to disbelieve the case of defendant is that prior to institution of the suit, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice and the same is received by the defendant. Exs.A-2 to A-4 proves the same. The fact remains that to deny the contents in Ex.A- 2 legal notice, the defendant has not issued any reply notice. Ex.A-1 goes to show that the defendant himself scribed the pronote. Therefore, the plaintiff discharged his burden by examining himself as P.W.1 and also examined one of the attestors in Ex.A-1 as P.W.2. Exs.A-2 to A-4 proves the same. The fact remains that to deny the contents in Ex.A- 2 legal notice, the defendant has not issued any reply notice. Ex.A-1 goes to show that the defendant himself scribed the pronote. Therefore, the plaintiff discharged his burden by examining himself as P.W.1 and also examined one of the attestors in Ex.A-1 as P.W.2. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is consistent and cogent with regard to borrowing of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 by the defendant and so also execution of Ex.A-1 pronote by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. 15. It was pleaded by the defendant in the written statement that the suit pronote Ex.A-1 is not supported by consideration to the extent of Rs.1, 00, 000.00. The defendant relied on the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2. D.W.1 is the defendant and D.W.2 is alleged to have been present at the time of Ex.A-1. It is in the evidence of D.W.1 that he approached the plaintiff for borrowing Rs.3, 00, 000.00 and the plaintiff asked him to come on 10/5/2002 and accordingly he went to the house of plaintiff and the plaintiff asked him to execute pronote for Rs.3, 00, 000.00 and accordingly he executed the same. The defendant has taken defence that the suit pronote is supported by consideration of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 only and Ex.A-1 is not supported by consideration to the extent of Rs.1, 00, 000.00. The defendant is not disputing the signature on Ex.A-1 pronote. The material on record clearly reveals that the defendant himself scribed Ex.A-1 pronote. The case of plaintiff is that the suit pronote was supported by consideration of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 and the same is proved by producing one of the attestors in Ex.A-1 pronote and examined as P.W.2 before the trial Court. If at all the plaintiff paid Rs.2, 00, 000.00 only instead of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 under Ex.A-1 pronote, what prevented the defendant for issuance of a legal notice to the plaintiff. The fact remains that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice under Ex.A-2 to the defendant and the same is received by the defendant, but he did not issue any reply notice to deny the contents of Ex.A-2 legal notice. Non-issuance of reply notice to Ex.A- 2 legal notice is certainly fatal to the case of defendant. 16. The fact remains that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice under Ex.A-2 to the defendant and the same is received by the defendant, but he did not issue any reply notice to deny the contents of Ex.A-2 legal notice. Non-issuance of reply notice to Ex.A- 2 legal notice is certainly fatal to the case of defendant. 16. It is the case of defendant that at the time of execution of Ex.A-1 pronote, D.W.2 was present and consideration of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 was only paid. No doubt, the presence of D.W.2 at the time of Ex.A-1 transaction is not at all proved by the defendant. D.W.2 also not acted as an attestor in Ex.A-1 pronote. Furthermore, the name of D.W.2 is not at all mentioned in the written statement filed by the defendant. There is no whisper in the written statement filed by the defendant about the presence of D.W.2 at the time of alleged transaction. 17. The learned counsel for appellant fairly represented that though the appellant has taken several pleas in the grounds of appeal, the appellant is confined his argument with regard to the rate of interest only. It is the case of appellant that the interest claimed by the plaintiff is excessive and the plaintiff claimed interest of 24% per annum from the date of Ex.A-1 pronote till the date of filing of the suit. The fact remains that the defendant has taken a specific plea in the written statement that the interest payable to the plaintiff is usurious. In the decision reported in M. Rajeswar Rao v. Chitluri Satyam (Died) and Others, 2013 SCC Online AP 809 and another decision reported in Ms. Surisetty Nookaratnam v. Saragadam Gowri Ramalakshmi, 2013 SCC Online AP 369. the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh has reduced the pre-lite interest from 24% to 12% per annum and from 18% to 12% per annum, respectively, by relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in Mahesh Chandra Bansal v. Krishna Swaroop, (1997) 10 SCC 681 . and in DDA v. Joginder S. Monga, (2004) 2 SCC 297 . In ascertaining the rate of interest, the Courts of Law can take judicial notice of inflation and the fall in bank lending rate of interest. and in DDA v. Joginder S. Monga, (2004) 2 SCC 297 . In ascertaining the rate of interest, the Courts of Law can take judicial notice of inflation and the fall in bank lending rate of interest. A reading of the precedents suggests that the steep fall in the bank lending interest rate is the main reason for reducing the pre-lite interest from 24% per annum. Therefore, I am of the considered view that if the interest rate is unconscionable and usurious, the Court has power to interfere. By following the case law referred, this Court is inclined to reduce the interest rate from 24% to 18% per annum from the date of Ex.A-1 pronote till the date of filing of the suit. 18. Given the above facts and circumstances, this Court views that the plaintiff is not entitled to rate of interest at 24% per annum, however, the plaintiff is entitled to interest of 18% per annum from the date of suit transaction till the date of filing of the suit. The findings arrived at by the trial Court on appreciation of the evidence in this case is therefore correct and does not call for interference, except the rate of interest as indicated above. Accordingly, the point is answered. 19. Point No.2:- To what extent ? For the reasons stated above, the appeal suit is allowed in part by modifying the rate of interest from 24% to 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 (Rupees three lakhs only) from the date of suit transaction till the date of filing of the suit. The rest of the judgment of the trial Court holds good. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Both parties shall bear their own costs.