Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 251 (AP)

Sanapala Setharam v. Vajja Semeswaramma

2025-02-10

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2025
JUDGMENT : Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J. This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 29-9-2021 in A.S.No.8 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 12-9-2014 in O.S.No.100 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta. 2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.100 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.100 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, with a prayer for recovery of Rs.3,86,800/- being the principal and interest at the rate of 12% per annum due on a pronote dated 02-7-2003 for Rs.3,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, decreed the suit for Rs.3,86,800/- with costs with future 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.3,00,000/-. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned VI Additional District Judge, Sompeda, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant/appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.100 of 2005, is as follows: It is pleaded that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20-7-2003 as he was in need of money, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on demand either to the plaintiff or to her order and after receipt of cash consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-, the defendant executed a promissory note dated 20-7-2003 in favour of the plaintiff with all the above terms. It is further pleaded that subsequently, the plaintiff demanded the defendant and also through elders and finally got issued a legal notice dated 30-9-2005 calling upon the defendant to pay the amount due under the promissory note together with interest accrued thereon. The defendant received the registered notice but did not pay any amount and on the other hand, he sent a reply with all false and untenable allegations. Hence, the suit is filed. 7. The defendant filed written statement denying the contents of plaint averments and further contended as follows: It is contended that he once borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from one Madina Amareswari, plaintiff’s daughter, about five years back and on her advice, the pronote was executed by him in the name of her relative. Later, he repaid the entire amount due under the said pronote to the said Amareswari in or around the year 2002, but the said Amareswari failed to return the pronote to him stating that it is mislaid. Out of good faith, he did not insist for the return of the same. It is further contended that later, the said Amareswari demanded him to pay another sum of Rs.30,000/- on the plea that he has to pay enhanced rate of interest than agreed under the pronote. In that connection, disputes arose between him and the said Amareswari. He never anticipated that the said Amareswari would create a pronote and get filed a suit through her mother. The suit pronote is a rank forgery. He never borrowed any money from the plaintiff at any time, much less on 20-7-2003 and at Balliputtuga and never executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The suit pronote is fabricated by the said Amareswari with the active connivance of the plaintiff and her men by forging his signature on the suit pronote. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the suit promissory note dated 20-7-2003 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim ? and (3) To what relief ? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim ? and (3) To what relief ? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. 10. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.8 of 2017 before the learned VI Additional District Judge’s Court, Sompeta, wherein, the following point came up for consideration. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed as prayed for by the appellant ? And if so, whether the judgment and decree dated 12-9-2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta in O.S.No.100 of 2005 is liable to be set aside or confirmed and if so, to what relief ? 11. The learned VI Additional District Judge, Sompeta, i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the point, as above, against the defendant/appellant and in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.100 of 2005 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. After institution of the second appeal by the defendant in the suit, this Court ordered notice to the respondent before admission and the said notice is served on the respondent/plaintiff. Heard Sri A. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and Sri Mullapudi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 13. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance with law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of CPC could be admitted only when the appellant satisfies this Court that the substantial question of law between the parties arise in this case. It is regulated in accordance with law. A second appeal preferred under Section 100 of CPC could be admitted only when the appellant satisfies this Court that the substantial question of law between the parties arise in this case. A proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the superior Courts or is not free from difficulty or cause for discussion of alternative views. In a case of Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi, (2007) 8 SCC 155 , the Apex Court held that it is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last Court of fact namely, the first appellate Court. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of facts are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate Court will not be interfered by the High Court in a second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. Where, the facts required for a point of law have not been pleaded, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal. The mere appreciation of facts, the documentary evidence and the contents of the documents cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. 14. The defendant having chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, it is for him to meet the above principles and satisfy the Court whether there exists any substantial question of law. 15. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings arrived by both the Courts below, therefore the grounds urged in the second appeal are to be scrutinized to find out whether the appellant has shown any substantial question of law. The contention of the appellant is that the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are contrary to law and that the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court and the first appellate Court. 16. The contention of the appellant is that the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are contrary to law and that the second appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below i.e. the trial Court and the first appellate Court. 16. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20-7-2003 and executed a demand pronote under Ex.A-1 in favour of the plaintiff and promised to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on demand either to the plaintiff or to her order and subsequently he failed to discharge the suit pronote debt. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on her self-testimony as P.W.1, which is well supported by P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the attestors to Ex.A-1 pronote. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 clinchingly proves about the passing of consideration under Ex.A-1 pronote from the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A-1 is the original suit pronote, Ex.A-2 is the copy of legal notice dated 30-9-2005 and Ex.A-3 is the original reply notice dated 25-10-2005 said to have been issued by the defendant. In cross- examination, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is not at all disturbed on the material aspects of the case in respect of passing of consideration and execution of Ex.A-1 pronote by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, both the Courts below came to the same conclusion that Ex.A-1 suit pronote is supported by consideration. 17. Passing of consideration, strictly speaking, is a matter of evidence on record and that does not give rise to any particular question of law. By the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 attestors, the signature on Ex.A-1 pronote was proved to have been subscribed by the defendant. The evidence on record did not indicate any hostility between the defendant and the attestors i.e. P.Ws.2 and 3. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 establishes that the signature on the pronote was that of defendant. Their evidence proved, as they witnessed about the passing of consideration from the plaintiff to the defendant. When once the signature of the defendant on Ex.A-1 pronote was proved, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act also came into force. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 establishes that the signature on the pronote was that of defendant. Their evidence proved, as they witnessed about the passing of consideration from the plaintiff to the defendant. When once the signature of the defendant on Ex.A-1 pronote was proved, the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act also came into force. The plaintiff proved about the passing of consideration under Ex.A-1 by examining two attestors in Ex.A-1 pronote. As against that, what was required for defendant was to show that the suit pronote did not bear his signature or that of no consideration was passed under the suit pronote, but the defendant failed to prove the same. 18. The appellant/defendant failed to prove the contentions regarding the non-payment of consideration by leading cogent evidence, he was not successful in showing the improbability of the consideration. The defence taken by the appellant/defendant is not substantiated. After careful consideration, the trial Court adequately appreciated the evidence on record. The learned first appellate Judge also adequately re-appreciated the evidence on record and both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the suit pronote is supported by consideration and the suit pronote is proved. But, in order to disprove the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, to prove the contention of the appellant that the suit pronote is a fabricated document, no other cogent evidence is adduced by the defendant. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Judge. The learned first appellate Judge on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, rightly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the first appeal. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Judge is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. 19. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the issues/points in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant do not brook interference and that both the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 19. Having regard to the reasons assigned, this Court is satisfied that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on all the issues/points in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant do not brook interference and that both the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record and there was neither illegality nor irregularity in those findings and therefore, the findings do not require to be upset. Further, the existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court as per Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. The questions raised, strictly speaking, are not even pure questions of law, let alone substantial questions of law. 20. Viewed thus, this Court finds that none of the questions raised are substantial questions and there is no subsistence in the questions raised and that therefore, the second appeal is devoid of merits and is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission. The law is well settled that a second appeal shall not be admitted if no substantial question of law arises for consideration and when no substantial question of law is involved. The view of this Court is reinforced by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki, AIR 2006 SC 1975 . In the case on hand, as stated supra, this Court finds after careful examination of the pleadings, evidence and contentions that no substantial question of law is involved, this second appeal is liable for dismissal at the stage of admission, in view of narrow compass of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. 21. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.