Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Seelam Venkata Krishna vs Kuditipudi Rama Krishna on 30 June, 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA
SECOND APPEAL No.160 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
The defendant is the appellant. The respondent as the plaintiff laid
the suit for recovery of Rs.2,39,996/- basing on a promissory note dated
04.09.2000 alleged to have had been executed by the appellant upon
receiving Rs.1,40,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24%
p.a.
2. There was exchange of notices between these parties before
institution of the suit and also criminal case on account of the alleged
dishonour of cheque issued by the appellant to the respondent. Claiming
that the appellant failed to repay the amount due in spite of demands, the
respondent instituted the suit in O.S.No.634 of 2003 on the file of the
Court of the learned V Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Vijayawada.
3. The predominant contention of the appellant in resisting this
claim of the respondent was the denial of the entire transaction relating to
execution of the suit promissory note, pleading that taking advantage of a
blank promissory note containing his signature, the suit promissory note
was brought out. The appellant further pleaded that there was a chit
transaction between him and the wife of the respondent in which context
blank cheques containing his signatures were taken as well as blank
promissory note including blank stamp paper. So contending, he denied
his liability towards the suit claim.
4. Upon settling appropriate issues basing on the pleadings, the
parties went to trial where the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and
attestors to the suit promissory note Ex.A1 being P.W.2 and P.W.3 and
MVR,J
S.A.No.160 of 2011
relied on Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. The appellant examined himself as D.W.1 and
two more witnesses being D.W.2 and D.W.3 in support of his contention.
Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 were also relied on by the appellant.
5. Rejecting the defence of the appellant on the material and the
evidence, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the
respondent and against the appellant as prayed.
6. The appellant presented A.S.No.17 of 2006 against the same
and that was considered by the learned II Additional District Judge,
Krishna at Vijayawada. By the decree and judgment dated 26.09.2007,
the learned appellate Judge upon re-appraisal of the entire evidence and
material agreed with the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Judge and
dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment of the trial
Court. It is against it the appellant has preferred this second appeal.
7. Sri V.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the appellant,
contended that both the courts below gravely erred in appreciation of the
evidence and material on record. The learned counsel further contended
that the defence of the appellant was not properly considered which is
fortified by Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 particularly when the material disclosed that
the appellant was not available at the time of the alleged date of Ex.A1
viz., 04.09.2000 and the Courts below should have held that the appellant
rebutted the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. Pointing out the substantial questions of law stated in
the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant elaborated on
the material.
MVR,J
S.A.No.160 of 2011
8. In this backdrop, particularly when the material is making out a
fact situation regarding which there are concurrent and consistent findings
recorded by both the courts below, it has to be seen whether a cause to
apply under section 100 CPC arises in this matter.
9. This is a simple claim based on Ex.A1 suit promissory note. Proof
has been let in by the respondent adducing oral evidence whereby the
testimony of the respondent as P.W.1 stood corroborated by the
testimony of two other witnesses viz., P.W.2 and P.W.3, the attestors to
Ex.A1. Thus, there is clear proof relating to execution of the suit
promissory note through appropriate witnesses.
10. In this context, admission of the appellant of his signature
appearing on Ex.A1 suit promissory note was considered by both the
courts below along with oral evidence adduced. On behalf of the
appellant, as seen from the material, the defence set up is not firm or is
on sound lines. It is further to be noted that the parties are known to
each other, as reflected from the defence on the appellant. The testimony
of D.W.2 and D.W.3 as rightly observed by the Courts below gave a
different dimension particularly in respect of the chit transaction which the
appellant stated, that he and the wife of the respondent had.
11. Thus, the material available and considered by both the Courts
below reflected only pure questions of fact, without there being
substantial questions of law to consider now. Application of Section 118 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act is held to favour the respondent than the
appellant in the opinion of both the Courts below and the reasons
assigned therefor are reflecting right approach. Neither can it be stated
that the version of the appellant attempted to be projected from the
MVR,J
S.A.No.160 of 2011
evidence on his behalf, is in the nature of rebuttal of the presumption
under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
12. Alibi projected by the appellant claiming that he was at Shirdi
on the alleged date of Ex.A1 viz., 04.09.2000, was not substantiated and
the status of the appellant as an employee in railways was also considered
by the learned appellate Judge in this context particularly while
considering the effect of Ex.B1 to Ex.B9.
13. Thus, the circumstances in this case projected only such
situation, which required that application of Section 100 CPC did not arise.
14. Upon satisfaction that consideration of this matter is
unnecessary in this second appeal on the material, since it did not attract
Section 100 CPC nor there are any substantial questions of law much less
one raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal, this second appeal
has to be dismissed.
15. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of
admission confirming the decrees and judgments of the Courts below and
without costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
________________________
JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA
Dt: 30.06.2021
RR
MVR,J
S.A.No.160 of 2011
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA
SECOND APPEAL No.160 of 2011
Dt: 30.06.2021
RR
