Dr. Nalluri Chenchaiah, vs Paritala Venkata Seshaiah,
2021 Latest Caselaw 5585 AP

               THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA

                       SECOND APPEAL No.617 of 2021

JUDGMENT:

The defendant is the appellant. The respondent laid the suit on the foot

of two promissory notes stating that the appellant had borrowed Rs.50,000/-

and Rs.43,000/- thereunder from him agreeing to repay with interest @ 24% per

annum. It is further case of the respondent that since the appellant did not

come forward to repay the amount due he was constrained to lay the suit.

2. The substantial defence of the appellant in resisting such claim of the

respondent is one of denial of execution of the suit promissory notes and also

questioning the financial capacity of the respondent to lend such money to him

while asserting that he is a man of wealth, who never had any necessity to

borrow.

3. On the pleadings, the trial Court has settled the following issues:

1. Whether the suit promissory notes dated 13.04.2009 are true, valid and genuine or were they created by forgery because of the disputes between the plaintiff and defendant as alleged?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

4. The parties went to trial. The respondent examined himself as PW1 and

attestor of the suit promissory notes as PW2 while relying on exhibits A1 & A2.

The appellant examined himself as DW1 and relied on as many as 13 documents

marked exhibits B1 to B13.

5. On the material and evidence, the trial Court rejected the defence and

decreed the suit as prayed, awarding interest @ 24% per annum assigning

MVR,J SA_617_2021

reasons, holding that the appellant is a Homeo Doctor and is not entitled for

any benefit under debt relief laws.

6. The appellant carried the matter in appeal where the appellate Court

also agreed with the findings of the trial Court and ultimately dismissed the

appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

7. These are the circumstances under which the present second appeal is

filed.

8. Sri Shaik Abdul Rasheed Ahammad, learned counsel for the appellant,

strenuously contended that both the Courts below did not consider whether the

respondent has financial capacity to lend such money and relied on highly

interested testimony of PW2, who is a close relative of PW1, in accepting the

claim of the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended

that the appellant never had any necessity to borrow from the respondent

which fact the Courts below did not properly appreciate. In these

circumstances, citing that the appreciation of the evidence by both the Courts

below is improper and perverse, learned counsel requested to consider the

second appeal.

9. In this backdrop, it is now to be determined whether the material on

record is making out such substantial question of law which the appellant

intends to raise, invoking Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

10. When there is denial of execution of the promissory notes, the burden is

on the respondent as the plaintiff to establish the claim against the appellant-

defendant. In discharge of it, the respondent examined himself as PW1 and

also PW2 while relying on the intrinsic worth of exhibits A1 & A2 - promissory

notes.

11. While PW1 deposed with reference to the suit transactions, PW2 - Sri

Rayani Ranga Rao, one of the attestors to these promissory notes, deposed

MVR,J SA_617_2021

supporting the version of PW1. No material as such was elicited at the trial to

discredit the testimony of both these witnesses. Both the Courts below rightly

appreciated their testimony in proper perspective holding that the same has

established the transactions under exhibits A1 & A2.

12. Interestedness attributed to PW2 is no solace to the appellant on

account of the fact that he was the driver of the tractor of the appellant for

nearly 10 to 15 years. Admittedly, he is the sister's son of PW1. There is no

rebuttal with reference to this fact. In this situation, the motive attributed to

PW2 to depose against the appellant does not exist as such. Therefore, the

contention so raised for the appellant cannot stand.

13. Wealth of the appellant is not a factor by itself to assume that there

would not be any necessity to borrow. On the other hand, as rightly observed

by both the Courts below, as seen from exhibit B13 - gold loan card of SBI,

Kondepi, the appellant had borrowed Rs.25,000/- pledging the gold jewellery.

Usually, the family assets like silverware or gold jewellery would be rarely

subjected to any encumbrance. Unless there is dire necessity, family jewellery

would not be subjected to such liability. This circumstance is enough to negate

the contention of the appellant's financial affluence or being wealthy.

14. Therefore, viewed from any perspective, what remains to consider is

only based on the facts. No substantial question of law as such arises for

determination in this second appeal. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that this

is not a fit case to invoke application of Section 100 CPC. Hence, this second

appeal is to be dismissed at the admission stage.

15. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. The decrees and

judgments of both the Courts below stand confirmed. No costs.

MVR,J SA_617_2021

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________ M.VENKATA RAMANA, J 30.12.2021 Vjl

MVR,J SA_617_2021

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA

SECOND APPEAL No.617 of 2021

30.12.2021

Vjl