Telangana High Court
Uppala Ramulu vs A Shankar on 26 September, 2023
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.200 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
This Appeal Suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree
dated 16.09.2016 in O.S.No.39 of 2014 passed by the learned
Principal District Judge, Nizamabad.
2. One A.Shankar/respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in
O.S.No.39 of 2014 for recovery of amount against the
appellant/defendant. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and
also got examined P.W.2 on his behalf and marked Exs.A1 to
A3. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1, but no
document was adduced on his behalf. The trial Court after
considering the arguments of both sides decreed the suit with
costs and interest. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, defendant
therein preferred the present appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant
contended that there are material alterations in the date of
execution of the Promissory note. Though it was executed in the
year 2011, it was altered as 2012. So also, the promissory note
was executed only for Rs.50,000/-, but it was altered as
Rs.14,50,000/-, but the trial Court without considering the
material alterations and also without comparing the signature
and handwriting of the appellant/defendant as per Section 73 of
the Indian Evidence Act, granted decree in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff. He further contended that plaintiff is a
Government employee and he has no financial capacity to
advance such a huge amount and the suit was also filed even
without issuing legal notice. Therefore, requested the Court to
set aside the Judgment of the trial Court.
4. In spite of the service of notice, respondent/plaintiff did
not turn up and thus heard the arguments of learned Counsel
for the appellant and reserved the matter for 'Judgment'.
5. Perused the entire record. The parties herein are referred
as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the trial Court for the
sake of convenience.
6. Plaintiff in his evidence stated that defendant was
acquainted with him for the past 10 years. On such
acquaintance, defendant approached him and requested for
hand loan of Rs.14,50,000/- for his business purpose. He also
stated that defendant is having half share in the house property
and he has shown the original release deed and promised that
he will clear the loan amount by selling his share of house
property. He paid interest till February, 2014 and later avoided
to pay the same. When the he came to know that defendant was
trying to sell away his share of house property, he demanded to
repay the loan on 05.06.2014, but the defendant gave evasive
reply, as such he filed third party affidavit and filed suit for
recovery of amount.
7. Plaintiff in his Cross-examination stated that Ex.A1 was
scribed by the defendant in his house and Ex.A3 is the original
release deed executed in favour of defendant and one Chinta
Bagyalaxmi. He filed I.A.No.881 of 2014 for attachment of
petition schedule property before Judgment basing on Ex.A3.
P.W.2 stated that he knows both the parties. He along with one
A.Rajeshwer Goud signed on the promissory note and amount
was given by the plaintiff to the defendant in his presence. He
also stated that defendant orally agreed to repay the same
within 1½ year. When it was suggested to him that defendant
borrowed only Rs.50,000/-, he denied it.
8. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he mainly
contended that he borrowed only Rs.50,000/- in the year 2011
@ 3% p.m and repaid the same in December, 2013. He also
stated that at the time taking the hand loan, plaintiff had
obtained his signatures on some white papers, promissory note
and cheques, but after making the entire payment, he has not
obtained the said documents due to trust on plaintiff and he
has not even obtained the receipt regarding the repayment of
amount. He further stated that there are material alterations.
The promissory note was executed in the year 2011, but it was
altered as 2012 and so also, the amount of Rs.50,000/- was
altered as Rs.14,50,000/- for wrongful gain. As the plaintiff is a
Government employee, he has no financial capacity to lend such
huge amount. The defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.103 of 2014
for perpetual injunction, in which the plaintiff was shown as
defendant No.11. After receiving the notices in the said suit, he
filed the suit in O.S.No.39 of 2014 by creating a fabricated
promissory note and it is also barred by limitation and thus
requested the Court to dismiss the suit.
9. The defendant in the suit mainly contended that the year
on the promissory note was altered i.e. 2011 as 2012, otherwise
it is barred by limitation. He also stated that he obtained hand
loan only for an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff, but
later it was altered to as Rs.14,50,000/-. The amount of
Rs.14,50,000/- was not only mentioned in numerical, but also
in words. Plaintiff clearly stated that promissory note was
scribed by defendant himself with his own handwriting and it
was also attested by P.W.2. Defendant stated that he has taken
an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff in the year 2011
and repaid the same in the year 2013. When once he repaid the
same, why he has not taken the promissory note from the
plaintiff was not explained by him. Defendant further stated
that plaintiff obtained his signatures on blank cheques and
promissory notes, even after the payment of Rs.50,000/-, why
he has not given any complaint or issued any legal notice
requesting the plaintiff for return of said documents was not
mentioned anywhere. Moreover, when it is the plea of the
defendant that the crucial document is altered and he also
denied his signature on the document, it is for him to send it to
the handwriting expert to establish that it is a fabricated
document, but he failed to do so. When, once the document is
signed by the defendant, it is presumed that consideration is
passed. Therefore, the contention of the defendant cannot be
accepted. The trial Court also discussed all the points in detail
and held that initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the
promissory note in question and then onus shifts on the
defendant. As the defendant failed to establish his defence,
presumptions under Section 118 of the N.I.Act will come into
play. Though the other defences raised by the defendant before
the trial Court were answered in detail, he filed the present
appeal by raising same objections and it amounts to abuse of
process of law and accordingly appeal is devoid of merits.
10. In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed with costs by
confirming the Judgment of the trial Court dated 16.09.2016 in
O.S.No.39 of 2014.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 26.09.2023
tri
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.200 of 2017
DATE: 26.09.2023
TRI
