Basani Mathyas Reddy, vs E. Vedaraiah Gari Venkata Ranga ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6973 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                  APPEAL SUIT No.2435 of 1999

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree in

O.S.No.227 of 1993 dated 15.07.1999.

2. Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of amount against

defendant. He examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to

A15 on his behalf and defendant examined himself as D.W.1

but he has not adduced any evidence or filed any document.

The trial Court after considering entire evidence on record

decreed the suit with interest at the rate of 18% per annum

from 11.09.1989 to till the date of Judgment and also decreed

for Rs.40,000/- from 09.07.1990 till the date of Judgment with

costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of

decree on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- till realization.

Aggrieved by the said Judgment, present appeal is preferred by

the defendant in the suit and contended that his defense was

not considered by the trial Court and he also stated that the

claim consists of two different transactions on different dates as

such single suit is not maintainable and the second transaction

wherein the plaintiff has claimed Rs.40,000/- is not properly

proved but the trial Court erroneously decreed the suit even

regarding the said amount without considering his evidence.

Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the same.

3. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire

evidence on record available with the Court. It shows that

plaintiff's firm was doing business in pesticides and seeds. On

11.09.1989, defendant requested the plaintiff to arrange

Rs.60,000/- for his business needs and family necessities

agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per

annum. The defendant again approached the plaintiff and

requested to arrange Rs.40,000/-, accordingly plaintiff paid the

said amount. The defendant issued post dated cheques in

favour of the plaintiff and promised to pay the amount with

interest in the months of January and February and take back

the cheques, but he failed to repay the amount as promised.

The plaintiff requested him for several times but he was

postponing the same on one or other pretext, as such plaintiff

caused a telegraphic notice dated 08.09.1992 and filed the suit

for claiming an amount of Rs.1,64,200/- with costs at the rate

of 24% per annum.

4. The defendant in his written statement denied the said

transaction and stated that he entered into an agreement of sale

of house plot measuring 1300 Sq.yards belonging to the son of

one E.V.Ranga Reddy and obtained agreement of sale dated

06.09.1989 and his daughter also executed an agreement of

sale for 1400 Sq.yards in favour of the son of defendant

Vijayapal Reddy on the same date. The defendant and his son

filed suit for specific performance in O.S.No.298 and 295 of

1994 and the same were pending before the Court. The

defendant issued two blank cheques for the said transaction to

the plaintiff and he failed to collect the same from him. The

defendant and his son issued notice dated 22.04.1992 and

02.09.1992 to the daughter and son of the plaintiff demanding

specific performance. After the service of the said notice plaintiff

filled up the two blank cheques and filed this claim.

5. Though defendant contended that he along with his son

entered into agreement of sale with the son and daughter of the

P.W.1, he has not filed any agreement of sale before the Court.

In fact, he has not adduced any evidence orally or documentary

proof to substantiate his evidence. Therefore, the trial Court

considering the evidence of plaintiff disbelieved his version that

he handed over two blank cheques and raised presumption

under Section 118 of the N.I. Act and observed that the

defendant issued Ex.A3 and A4 for valid consideration.

Regarding the payment of Rs.60,000/- to the defendant on

11.09.1989 in cash and obtained the signature in the day book

under Ex.A1. The trial Court compared his signature on Ex.A1

with the admitted signatures of the defendant available on his

deposition, written statement etc., Ex.A2 is the entry in the day

book regarding cheque of Rs.40,000/- and further stated that in

the cross-examination he impliedly admitted the receipt of

cheque and encashment and acknowledged on counter foil. The

trial Court also perused the day book ledger for the relevant

entries regarding payment of Rs.40,000/- through cheque and

also observed that in the Income Tax Returns filed by the

plaintiff shows Rs.60,000/- and Rs.40,000/- and thus plaintiff

established his case and as there is no evidence on behalf of the

defendant, suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

Considering the fact that telegraphic notice dated 08.09.1992

and the suit is filed on 09.09.1992 costs were not granted. So,

in the absence of any evidence on behalf of the defendant the

trial Court rightly considered the evidence adduced by the

plaintiff orally and documentary. Considering the oral and

documentary evidence the appellant herein also contended that

the interest granted by the trial Court is excessive but plaintiff

stated that the amount of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.40,000/- was

received with a promise to repay the same along with interest at

the rate of 24% per annum, but the trial Court granted 18% and

12% respectively, therefore the Judgment and decree granted by

the trial Court along with interest needs no interference.

In the result, appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed

confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.227 of 1993

dated 15.07.1999. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________

JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

DATED: 26.12.2022

tri

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

APPEAL SUIT No.2435 of 1999

DATED: 26.12.2022

TRI