Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Indeti Srinivasa Rao vs Nagavarapu Nagaraju on 20 September, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010132982024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3206]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
SECOND APPEAL NO: 543/2024
Between:
Indeti Srinivasa Rao ...APPELLANT
AND
Nagavarapu Nagaraju ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
The Court made the following Judgment:
The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.358 of 2014 against the
appellant, in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla for
recovery of money supported by a pronote dated 08.08.2012.
2. The case of the respondent was that the appellant had borrowed
a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 08.08.2012 for family expenses and had executed
a pronote in favour of the respondent for repaying the same with interest,
compounded at the rate of 24% p.a. As the appellant was not paying the said
amounts, the respondent had got a legal notice dated 31.07.2014 issued to
the appellant. However, the appellant even after receipt of the notice on
04.08.2014 had not replied to the same prompting the respondent to file the
suit.
3. The appellant took the defence, in his written statement, that the
respondent had no acquaintance with the appellant. The appellant also
contended that the respondent had certain financial dealings with his nephew,
who is the son of his brother and due to the disputes between his nephew and
the respondent, the present suit came to be filed against him as means of
pressuring his nephew as well as himself. The appellant also denied his
signature on the pronote which was subsequently marked as Ex.A1.
4. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court had held that the
appellant had executed the pronote on the ground that the appellant had not
really disputed the pronote except denying the same in the written statement.
Both the trial Court and the appellate Court, after taking into account the fact
that the appellant had not taken any steps to get the signature on the pronote
compared with any of the admitted signatures and that the appellant had not
produced any of the contemporaneous signatures for such comparison had
held that the version of the appellant cannot be accepted. The appellate Court
also took a further view that the signature of the appellant on the pronote
could not have been forged by the respondent as he was unaware of the
actual signature of the appellant. The appellate Court held that if the
contention of the appellant that he had no acquaintance with the respondent
was to be accepted, there would be no possibility for the respondent to know
what the signature of the appellant looks like.
5. To sum up, both the trial Court and the appellate Court, on a
finding of fact, had held that the defence of the appellant is not acceptable.
6. In such circumstances, and keeping in view of the fact that no
substantial question of law really arises in this case, no further purpose would
be served in proceeding with this appeal.
7. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
RJS
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Dt: 20.09.2024
RJS
