THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.2435 of 1999
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.227 of 1993 dated 15.07.1999.
2. Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of amount against defendant. He examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A15 on his behalf and defendant examined himself as D.W.1 but he has not adduced any evidence or filed any document. The trial Court after considering entire evidence on record decreed the suit with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 11.09.1989 to till the date of Judgment and also decreed for Rs.40,000/- from 09.07.1990 till the date of Judgment with costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of decree on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- till realization. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, present appeal is preferred by the defendant in the suit and contended that his defense was not considered by the trial Court and he also stated that the claim consists of two different transactions on different dates as such single suit is not maintainable and the second transaction wherein the plaintiff has claimed Rs.40,000/- is not properly 2 proved but the trial Court erroneously decreed the suit even regarding the said amount without considering his evidence. Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the same.
3. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record available with the Court. It shows that plaintiff's firm was doing business in pesticides and seeds. On 11.09.1989, defendant requested the plaintiff to arrange Rs.60,000/- for his business needs and family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The defendant again approached the plaintiff and requested to arrange Rs.40,000/-, accordingly plaintiff paid the said amount. The defendant issued post dated cheques in favour of the plaintiff and promised to pay the amount with interest in the months of January and February and take back the cheques, but he failed to repay the amount as promised. The plaintiff requested him for several times but he was postponing the same on one or other pretext, as such plaintiff caused a telegraphic notice dated 08.09.1992 and filed the suit for claiming an amount of Rs.1,64,200/- with costs at the rate of 24% per annum.
3
4. The defendant in his written statement denied the said transaction and stated that he entered into an agreement of sale of house plot measuring 1300 Sq.yards belonging to the son of one E.V.Ranga Reddy and obtained agreement of sale dated 06.09.1989 and his daughter also executed an agreement of sale for 1400 Sq.yards in favour of the son of defendant Vijayapal Reddy on the same date. The defendant and his son filed suit for specific performance in O.S.No.298 and 295 of 1994 and the same were pending before the Court. The defendant issued two blank cheques for the said transaction to the plaintiff and he failed to collect the same from him. The defendant and his son issued notice dated 22.04.1992 and 02.09.1992 to the daughter and son of the plaintiff demanding specific performance. After the service of the said notice plaintiff filled up the two blank cheques and filed this claim.
5. Though defendant contended that he along with his son entered into agreement of sale with the son and daughter of the P.W.1, he has not filed any agreement of sale before the Court. In fact, he has not adduced any evidence orally or documentary proof to substantiate his evidence. Therefore, the trial Court considering the evidence of plaintiff disbelieved his version that 4 he handed over two blank cheques and raised presumption under Section 118 of the N.I. Act and observed that the defendant issued Ex.A3 and A4 for valid consideration. Regarding the payment of Rs.60,000/- to the defendant on 11.09.1989 in cash and obtained the signature in the day book under Ex.A1. The trial Court compared his signature on Ex.A1 with the admitted signatures of the defendant available on his deposition, written statement etc., Ex.A2 is the entry in the day book regarding cheque of Rs.40,000/- and further stated that in the cross-examination he impliedly admitted the receipt of cheque and encashment and acknowledged on counter foil. The trial Court also perused the day book ledger for the relevant entries regarding payment of Rs.40,000/- through cheque and also observed that in the Income Tax Returns filed by the plaintiff shows Rs.60,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and thus plaintiff established his case and as there is no evidence on behalf of the defendant, suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Considering the fact that telegraphic notice dated 08.09.1992 and the suit is filed on 09.09.1992 costs were not granted. So, in the absence of any evidence on behalf of the defendant the trial Court rightly considered the evidence adduced by the plaintiff orally and documentary. Considering the oral and 5 documentary evidence the appellant herein also contended that the interest granted by the trial Court is excessive but plaintiff stated that the amount of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.40,000/- was received with a promise to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, but the trial Court granted 18% and 12% respectively, therefore the Judgment and decree granted by the trial Court along with interest needs no interference.
In the result, appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.227 of 1993 dated 15.07.1999. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATED: 26.12.2022 tri 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT No.2435 of 1999 DATED: 26.12.2022 TRI