Telangana High Court
M. Gambheer vs B. Gunuwanth Reddy on 10 October, 2023
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
1
PSS, J.
S.A.No.1588 of 2004
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
SECOND APPEAL No.1588 OF 2004
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgmenrt and
decree passed in A.S.No.17 of 2003 dated 18.08.2004 on the file
of II Additional District Judge, (FTC), Adilabad District confirming
the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.47 of 2000 dated
17.04.2003 one the file of Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a Suit in O.S.No.47 of 2000
for recovery of an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand
only) against the appellant/defendant basing on the promissory
note dated 25.01.1999. The trial Court examined PWs.1 and 2
and marked Exs.A1 to A4 on behalf of the plaintiff. DWs.1 and 2
were examined on behalf of the defendant and marked Exs.B1
and B2 on his behalf. The trial Court after considering the
arguments of both sides decreed the Suit with interest @12% per
annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of
realization. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree,
defendant therein preferred an appeal before the first appellate
PSS, J.
S.A.No.1588 of 2004
Court, but the same was dismissed by confirming the Judgment
of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both
the Courts, appellant/defendant preferred the present Second
Appeal on the following substantial questions of law:-
1 Whether in the absence of any receipt showing the
amount paid to the appellant, will the presumption
under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act
available in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.
2 Whether the finding of the first appellate Court and trial
Court are perverse.
3 Whether the burden lies upon the Appellant/Defendant
to disprove the case, in case no receipt is filed by the
plaintiff regarding the payment of money.
4 Whether both the Courts failed to appreciate that the
promissory note alleged to be executed on 25-01-1999 is
sufficiently stamped and is admissible in evidence.
5 Whether a pure question of law, which does not require
any re-appreciation of evidence, can be permitted to be
urged even for the first time in Second Appeal.
6 The Appellant crave leave of this Court to raise the other
grounds at the time of hearing.
3. Heard both sides and perused the material available on
record.
4. The parties herein are referred as plaintiff and defendant as
arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
PSS, J.
S.A.No.1588 of 2004
5. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he simply
denied the execution of the promissory note and stated that he is
no way concerned with the said promissory note. He also stated
that he has no business transaction with the plaintiff and he has
no friendship with the plaintiff. He mainly contended that
plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount of Rs.50,000/- to
him. The defendant in his evidence stated that he is having
Ac.34.00 cents of land and raising crops like Cotton, Jawar and
red-gram etc. As and when required, he used to take Rs.5,000/-
or Rs.6,000/- from PW2 by signing on a stamp paper and was
repaying the said amount after selling out the crop. As there was
no cordial relationship between him and PW2, at the instance of
PW2, PW1 got created false promissory note and filed a suit
against him.
6. Plaintiff had filed original promissory note under Ex.A1,
Ex.A2 Postal receipt, Ex.A3 Legal notice and Ex.A4 returned
postal cover in support of his contention and stated that
defendant executed the promissory note for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
for his personal needs to perform the marriage of his son and
PSS, J.
S.A.No.1588 of 2004
daughter and he admitted his signature on Ex.A1. When once the
signature is admitted, execution of promissory note is accepted
and passing of the consideration is presumed under Section 118
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereas defendant
disputed the signature and also stated that his signature was
forged. When once he takes the plea of forgery, onus shifts upon
the defendant and it is for him, to prove the same by sending the
promissory note to the hand writing expert, but he failed to do so.
7. PW2 stated that plaintiff has Ac.15.00 cents of land. Apart
from that, he also owned land to an extent of Ac.6.00 cents under
Ex.B1 and B2, as such, the contention of the defendant that
plaintiff has no capacity to lend money cannot be accepted.
As the defendant simply denied the promissory note in his
written statement and came up with several versions in his
evidence, the evidence without pleadings cannot be considered.
Though the defendant denied his signature in the written
statement, he admitted his signature in his cross-examination.
The first appellate Court gave a detailed reasoning while
confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Therefore, this Court
PSS, J.
S.A.No.1588 of 2004
finds no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court
as well as the First Appellate Court. There are no merits in the
Second Appeal.
8. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed as devoid of
merits, confirming the concurrent findings of both the Courts.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
____________________________
JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
Dt.10-10-2023.
krl
PSS, J.
S.A.No.1588 of 2004
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
SECOND APPEAL No.1588 OF 2004
Dt. 10.10.2023
krl
