Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K. Lakshmana Rao vs Nallani Sai Babu on 3 November, 2023
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
APPEAL SUIT No.304 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
Defendant before the trial court is the appellant herein.
Plaintiff in the suit is the respondent herein.
2. Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for appellant
and Sri Venkata Ranga Das, Kanuri, learned counsel for
respondent submitted arguments.
3. OS.No.591 of 2010 before learned I Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Vijayawada was filed by plaintiff. He alleged that the
defendant borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- cash from him on
09.11.2007 and executed a demand promissory note agreeing to
repay the same with 24% interest per annum as and when
demanded. Despite demands and notice dated 15.04.2010
defendant did not pay and therefore plaintiff sued him for
recovery of Rs.5,53,000/- comprising the principal and interest
accrued till then. Defendant filed his written statement wherein
he denied the case set up by the plaintiff and narrated his own
version of the case. Suit went for trial. Learned trial court
settled the following issues for trial:
Dr. VRKS, J
A.S.No.304 of 2012
Issues: -
1. Whether suit pro-note is true, valid and supported by
consideration?
2. Whether the suit pro-note was fabricated by
A.B.Koteswara Rao?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount from the
defendant?
4. Plaintiff testified as PW.1 and the scribe of the promissory
note testified as PW.2 and the attestor of the promissory note
testified as PW.3. The disputed pro-note is Ex.A1. The office
copy of demand legal notice issued by plaintiff to the defendant
is Ex.A2 and it was received by the defendant on 17.04.2010 as
evidenced by Ex.A3/postal acknowledgment. Defendant testified
as DW.1 and he got examined Sri A.B.Koteswara Rao as one of
his witnesses in defence ad DW.2.
5. After considering the entire evidence on record and the
submissions made by learned counsel for plaintiff and after
noting that no arguments were submitted by defendants,
learned trial court analysed the entire evidence and recorded
definite findings to the affect that the version pleaded and
spoken to by the plaintiff and supported by PWs.2 and 3 were
Dr. VRKS, J
A.S.No.304 of 2012
true and the versions spoken by defendant were inconsistent. It
recorded that defendant borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- from plaintiff
and executed Ex.A1/promissory note. The theory of fabrication
and forgery of pro-note was negatived. Learned trial court
answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and passed
judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the following terms:
"In the result, suit is decreed with costs. Plaintiff is entitled
to recover a sum of Rs.5,53,000/- from defendant with
subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of
filing of suit till date of decree and thereafter at 6% per
annum till realization on principal amount of
Rs.3,50,000/."
6. Aggrieved by that, this present appeal under Section 96
read with Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC is filed by the defendant.
Leaned counsel for appellant/defendant contends that the
learned trial court failed to read the evidence properly and that
the appellant/defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/- and the
evidence indicated that the suit pro-note was a fabricated
document. For these reasons, learned counsel for
appellant/defendant prays to set aside the impugned judgment.
7. As against it, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff
submits that as against the consistent evidence of PW.1 to 3
Dr. VRKS, J
A.S.No.304 of 2012
inconsistent versions of defendant were properly analysed by
the learned trial court and appropriate presumption under
Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was drawn by
the learned trial court and only to protract the proceedings
defendant is prolonging the litigation without any merits.
Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff seeks dismissal of
appeal.
8. The points that fall for consideration are:
1. Had the appellant/defendant not borrowed
Rs.3,50,000/- and had he not executed
Ex.A1/promissory note in favour of
respondent/plaintiff?
2. Whether the learned trial court failed to
consider the evidence properly and reached to
incorrect conclusions requiring interference?
POINTS: -
From the record and from the submissions of the learned
counsel on both sides, the following facts are not in dispute:
Defendant/appellant is a graduate and plaintiff/
respondent is an agriculturist and also does finance business.
Dr. VRKS, J
A.S.No.304 of 2012
They are known to each other for a long time. Ex.A1 is the
promissory note dated 09.11.2007 for Rs.3,50,000/- . According
to PW.1,2 and 3, defendant borrowed that money and executed
that promissory note. Earlier to the institution of the suit
mentioning the debt transaction and execution of pro-note
plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 notice and the defendant received it as
per Ex.A3/postal acknowledgment and defendant did not issue
any reply notice. On the above evidence one could reasonably
reach to a conclusion that defendant borrowed Rs.3,50,000/-
from the plaintiff and failed to repay the same despite valid
demands for repayment. That must entitle the plaintiff to decree
in his favour.
9. In the written statement and in his evidence, defendant
stated that through DW.2/Sri A.B.Koteswara Rao, he borrowed
Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff in the year 2006 and repaid the same
along with overdue interest. Be it noted Ex.A1 mentioned
transaction is of the year 2007 and defendant was speaking
about the transaction that took place in the year 2006.
Therefore, there is no relevance in his contention.
10. Further contention of the defendant/appellant is that
while borrowing that Rs.50,000/- blank promissory notes and
Dr. VRKS, J
A.S.No.304 of 2012
his title deeds and blank cheques were obtained by plaintiff
from him. No one could understand as to why one would ask
totally blank papers even without signatures of the person
giving them. Thus defendant raised a contention that had no
worth at all.
11. In the written statement defendant contended that
Ex.A1/promissory note does not contain his signature.
However, during the course of trial he stated that promissory
note contains his signature and in fact this was one pro-note
the plaintiff had earlier obtained as a blank document. Thus,
there is change in his version. Be that as it may. Defendant did
not produce his contemporaneous writings and signatures and
did not take steps to have opinion of any expert either about the
age of the ink or about any manipulations in the document. He
did not choose to issue reply notice explaining his version of the
case. He said about giving a complaint to police but he never
exhibited any document in support of it. There was no enmity
between defendant on one hand and PWs.2 and 3 on the other
hand. No plausible cause could be seen for PW.2 and 3 to speak
anything false as against the innocent defendant. Considering
all these facts and circumstances, learned trial court rightly
disbelieved the version of defendant. It is curious to note that
Dr. VRKS, J
A.S.No.304 of 2012
reading of the written statement indicates Sri A.B.Koteswara
Rao is the one who is instrumental in getting a fabricated pro-
note enabling the plaintiff to file the suit. However, at the trial
defendant himself examined that Mr.A.B.Koteswara Rao. Thus,
defendant was only using one of his friends to support his false
theories. Learned trial court rightly analyzed all the facts and
circumstances and rightly arrived at proper conclusions.
12. This court finds no merit in any of the grounds urged here
for the defendant/appellant. Points are answered against the
appellant.
13. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. As a consequence,
the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.12.2011 of learned
I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Vijayawada in O.S.No.591 of
2010 stands confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Defendant shall forthwith discharge his decretal debt.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 03.11.2023
Dvs
Dr. VRKS, J
A.S.No.304 of 2012
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
APPEAL SUIT No.304 of 2012
Date:03.11.2023
Dvs
Dr. VRKS, J
A.S.No.304 of 2012
