Sanke Babu vs Sannala Brahmaji
2022 Latest Caselaw 3253 AP

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

                        S.A.NO.215 OF 2022

JUDGMENT

The defendants in O.S.No.27 of 2016 on the file of the

court of Junior Civil Judge, Bantumilli are the appellants. The

respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of an

amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on the basis of a promissory note.

2. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that on 26-04-2013 both the

defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from

the father of the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in

favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest

@ 24% per annum. Subsequently, the father of the plaintiff died

on 13-10-2013. Thereafter, when the plaintiff demanded for

repayment, the defendants issued a post dated cheque, bearing

No.749831, dated 26-02-2016 for an amount of Rs.3,36,000/-

drawn on State Bank of India, Chinapandraka branch. When the

plaintiff presented the said cheque in his banker, the same was

returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds". After issuing

a legal notice, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

3. The appellants/defendants contested the suit by filing a

written statement. It is their plea that they borrowed a little

amount for their immediate necessities and executed a

promissory note. They further pleaded that they issued a blank

cheque as well as promissory note signed by them towards

security for the little amount.

4. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined Pws.1 and 2

and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the defendants, Dws.1

and 2 were examined, but no documents got marked.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court framed

the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff obtained empty pronotes and

cheques from the defendants as surety to the

amount borrowed by the defendants?

2. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding

on the defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount

as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

6. After an elaborate trial, the trail court decreed the suit by

judgment and decree, dated 10-08-2017. Aggrieved by the

same, the defendants filed A.S.No.60 of 2017 before the

I Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, which was dismissed

by judgment and decree, dated 26-11-2021. Aggrieved by the

same, the present Second Appeal is filed.

7. As seen from both the judgments, the appellants are not

disputing the execution of the promissory note and issuance of a

cheque. They are also not disputing the signatures on the

pronote. The appellants simply stated that they have borrowed a

little amount. It is pertinent to note that they have not stated

and pleaded anywhere as to what is the little amount.

Considering the entire evidence on record, both the courts below

held against the appellants and decreed the suit in favour of the

plaintiff.

8. This court, having perused the entire material evidence on

record as well as the judgments of the trial court and first

appellate court, finds no question of law much less substantial

question of law that arises for consideration in this Second

Appeal and therefore, the Second Appeal is liable to be

dismissed at the stage of admission.

9. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage

of admission. No costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

in consequence.

__________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J 01-07-2022.

TSNR