Lakumarapu Ravi Kumar vs Smt.Gopagani Madhavilatha
2024 Latest Caselaw 3300 Tel

Telangana High Court

Lakumarapu Ravi Kumar vs Smt.Gopagani Madhavilatha on 23 August, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                         A.S.No.493 OF 2023

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2022

in O.S.No.21 of 2017 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned

judgment') passed by the learned Principal District Judge,

Suryapet (hereinafter will be referred as 'trial Court'), the

defendants preferred the present appeal to set aside the

impugned judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are

referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the plaint

are that the respondent/plaintiff filed suit for recovery of

Rs.28,64,666/- based on three promissory notes, dated

22.10.2016 and 29.10.2016 for Rs.25,00,000/- alleging that the

defendant Nos.1 and 2 being wife and husband took advance of

Rs.25,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 22.10.2016 and

29.10.2016 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per

annum. The defendant No.2 stood as surety. The defendants

failed to repay the above said amount and also dodged the

matter by giving evasive replies, however, defendant No.1 issued

MGP, J as_493_2023

cheque bearing No.733805 for Rs.15,00,000/-. When the said

cheque was presented by the plaintiff in the bank, the said

cheque was returned under the caption "stop payment

instructions". The plaintiff got issued legal notice to the

defendants. Later the plaintiff came to know that the

defendants are trying to alienate the properties standing in their

name, hence, the plaintiff requested the defendants to discharge

the loan amount on 04.06.2017 but the defendants refused the

said request. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of

money against defendants.

4. The reply of the defendants to the plaint averments as per

their written statement is as under:

a) The plaintiff along with her husband Gopagani Yadhagiri

obtained dealership for its products for Warangal District from

the defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are Managing Director and

Director of IPCA software Solutions Private Limited respectively.

It is further alleged that the plaintiff offered Rs.10,00,000/- as

goodwill and Rs.15,00,000/- towards security for the materials

delivered on 11.10.2016. A draft dealership agreement along

with material worth of Rs.67,50,000/- valued at dealer price

were handed over to the plaintiff and her husband. The plaintiff

MGP, J as_493_2023

and her husband alleged to have promised to sign agreement

after consulting their counsel but did not do so and apart from

that they failed to sell the products worth of Rs.67,50,000/-

supplied to them. In view of the family relationship, the

defendants agreed to return Rs.15,00,000/- without interest

within a period of 15 months on condition that materials

handed over to them are to be returned.

b) On the insistence of the plaintiff, the defendants under

influence, coercion, threat signed on three blank promissory

notes for Rs.15,00,000/-. In the absence of first defendant, the

plaintiff and her husband obtained two blank cheques from

defendant No.2.

c) The plaintiff and her husband along with one Chakka

Haribabu one of the dealers of IPCA software solutions private

limited together started harassing defendants and on

06.02.2017 they attacked the defendants at their residence.

One Satyam Goud a self-styled mediator also participated in

said attack and threatened defendants with dire consequences.

They all obtained signatures of defendants and also father of

defendant No.2 on pre printed non judicial stamp worth of

Rs.100/- besides two blank cheques bearing Nos.711913 and

MGP, J as_493_2023

711914 of SBH, Hyderabad main branch. The defendants tried

to book case against the plaintiff and her husband by giving

complaint to police but Police helped plaintiff and her husband

to close their business at Suryapet. Hence, the defendants

prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned trial Court has

framed as many as six issues. On behalf of plaintiff, PWs 1 to 3

were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On the other

hand, the first defendant was examined as DW1, however, no

documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the

defendants. On considering the oral and documentary

evidence, the trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendants. Aggrieved by the same,

the defendants have preferred the present appeal to set aside

the impugned judgment.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record including the

grounds of appeal.

7. The first and foremost contention of the defendants is

that the trial Court failed to decide the issues framed in the

course of trial on the separate conclusion and failed to

MGP, J as_493_2023

appreciate the evidence of the defendants. It is further

contended that the trial Court never answered and discussed

the issues Nos.1 to 5 separately, which is contrary to law and

Civil Procedure Code. The learned counsel for the defendants

relied upon a decision in Sathyanath and another v.

Sarojamani 1, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court observed

that in a case where the issues of both law and fact arise in the

same suit and the Court is of the opinion that the case or any

part thereof may be disposed of an issue of law only, it may try

that suit first, if it relates to jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to

the suit created by any law for the time being in force. As can

be seen from the record, the trial Court has framed the

following six issues before proceeding with the trial of the case.

1. Whether the plaintiff entered into dealership proposal agreement with defendants and offered Rs.10 lakhs for goodwill and Rs.15 lakhs as security for materials?

2. Whether the defendants supplied the plaintiff with materials worth Rs.67,50,000/- at dealer price?

3. Whether the defendants agreed to return Rs.15 lakhs subject to return of the materials?

4. Whether the promotes dated 22.10.2016, 29.10.2016 for Rs.10 lakhs, Rs.8 lakhs and Rs.7 lakhs were executed as collateral security along with cheque

1 2022 Live Law (SC) 458

MGP, J as_493_2023

dated 11.05.2017 for Rs.15 lakhs?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

6. To what result?

8. As can be seen from the above issues, all the issues

framed by the trial Court are pertaining to the question of fact,

as such, there was no necessity for the trial Court to answer the

issues related to question of law first and then try the suit.

Hence, the principle laid down in Sathyanath's case (supra)

cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.

9. Further, it is very much evident from the pleadings before

the trial Court that the defendant alleged to have borrowed

Rs.25 lakhs from the plaintiff and whereas the defendants

denying the said contention on the pretext that defendants

issued promissory notes for the purpose of collateral security

against the advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- paid by the

plaintiff and her husband to the defendants towards dealership.

Thus, it is amply evident that though the trial Court has framed

as many as six issues, the entire dispute is with regard to one

aspect i.e., whether the defendants have borrowed the money

from the plaintiff or not. Since all the issues framed by the trial

Court in the impugned judgment were pertaining to one cause

MGP, J as_493_2023

of action, which was invoked by the plaintiff, the trial Court

answered all the issues, which are interconnected with each

other, jointly to avoid repetition of facts and avoid unnecessary

confusion. There is no bar for the trial Court to discuss all the

issues together unless the issues are so fundamentally different

from each other. Even otherwise, the High Court for the State of

Karnataka in Sri K C Paramashivaiah v. Sri T

Narayanaswamy 2 observed as under:

"22. The lower appellate court has observed that the clear finding on issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 have not been recorded. This procedural aspect was highlighted by the appellant. It is true that it has been now laid down that the lower Court must answer all the issue raised in the suit by assigning specific reasons, supporting the conclusions arrived at by the Court, so that such reasoning is amenable for scrutiny by the appellate Court. But, there is no legal prescription that the lower Court cannot answer all the issues together. As long as the lower Court has considered all the materials produced before it and has applied its mind to all the issue raised in the suit, merely on the ground that each of the issues are not separately answered, cannot be a reason to set aside the Judgment of the lower Court."

10. In view of the principle laid down in the above said

decision, it is clear that a judgment and decree passed by the

trial Court cannot be set aside merely on the ground that each

of the issues are not answered separately. Furthermore, the

defendants failed to explain as to what kind of prejudice or

injustice that was caused to them when the issues were

answered together.

MGP, J as_493_2023

11. As stated supra, as per the contention of the defendants,

they have supplied material worth of Rs.67,50,000/- to the

plaintiff and her husband against the security amount of Rs.15

lakhs deposited by the plaintiff with the defendants. When the

plaintiff and her husband failed to sell the material supplied by

the defendants, considering the family relationship, the

defendants agreed to return Rs.15 lakhs, for which the

defendants have issued promissory notes towards security in

favour of the plaintiff. But it is to be seen that the security

alleged to have been submitted by the plaintiff has to be in

conformity with the material worth of Rs.67,50,000/- alleged to

have been supplied by the defendant but not Rs.15 lakhs,

which is very low when compared to Rs.67,50,000/-. Further,

it is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff along

with her husband agreed to proceed with the dealership in

respect of the products supplied by the defendants. In such

circumstances, the defendants ought to have issued promissory

notes in favour of plaintiff as well as her husband. But as can

be seen from the record, the promissory notes were issued only

in the name of plaintiff but not along with her husband. Thus,

considering the above facts and circumstances, the above said

contention raised by the defendants is appearing to be

MGP, J as_493_2023

unbelievable.

12. The other contention of the defendants is that while

deciding issue No.6 the trial Court utterly failed in granting cost

of Rs.26,82,333/- which includes interest @ 12% per annum

from the date of execution of Exs.A1 to A3 till the date of suit

and @ 9% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree

and future interest is awarded @ 6% per annum on principle

amount of Rs.25,00,000/- till realisation. As evident from

Exs.A1 to A3, though the plaintiff has claimed interest @ 24%

per annum, the trial Court has restricted the claim of interest @

12% per annum, which was not challenged by the plaintiff.

The interest awarded by the trial Court from the date of filing of

the suit till the date of decree @ 9% per annum and the future

interest @ 6% per annum till the date of realisation is appearing

to be in proper perspective. Though the defendants contended

that there is gross error in awarding interest, there is no clarity

as to what is the error committed by the trial Court while

awarding interest.

13. It is further contention of the defendants that while

granting the relief, the trial Court ought to have seen that the

cheque under Ex.A4 is concurrently claimed under the

MGP, J as_493_2023

provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It

is further contention of the defendants that the trial Court has

not considered that the police case was registered against the

same event. It is pertinent to note that civil proceedings focus

on recovering the amount owed and whereas the criminal

proceedings aim to penalize the drawer of the cheque. Thus, the

payee/holder of the cheque can file case under section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act against the drawer of the cheque and

simultaneously can also file a civil case for recovery. Apart from

that if the acts of the drawer of the cheque involves any element

of cheating or dishonest intention, then the payee/holder of the

cheque can take appropriate measures under the provisions of

Indian Penal Code. In Golden Menthol Export Private

Limited v. Sheba Wheels (P) Limited 3 the Guwahati High

Court held that the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be taken as an

alternative to civil suit for the realisation of money on dishonour

of cheque. Further, the conviction under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act will never absolve the drawer of the

cheque from civil liability.

2007 (2) GLT 47

MGP, J as_493_2023

14. It is further contention of the defendants that the trial

Court failed to see that the transactions between both the

parties to the suit was a business of a company named IPCA

Software Solutions Private Limited, which was not made a party

to the suit. Further, the trial Court ought to have seen that the

plaintiff along with her husband alleged to have entered into a

dealership agreement with the defendants and got received

material worth of Rs.67,50,000/- valued at dealer price and

plaintiff failed to sell the material, which was supplied by the

defendants. It is to be seen that though the defendants are

alleging that plaintiff entered into a dealership agreement with

them in respect of material worth of Rs.67,50,000/-, no

palpable evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendants.

Except the oral evidence, which is not supported by the

evidence of any other eyewitness, no documentary evidence is

adduced by the defendants to establish any of their contentions.

On one hand, the defendants are contending that they have

supplied material worth of Rs.67,50,000/- to the plaintiff and

her husband and on the other hand they are contending that

the dealership agreement under which they supplied material

worth of Rs.67,50,000/- to the plaintiff and her husband, has

not yet been signed either by the plaintiff or her husband. No

MGP, J as_493_2023

man of ordinary prudence will hand over material worth of

Rs.67,50,000/- to others without obtaining any security much

less without obtaining signatures on the dealership agreement.

15. In the cross examination, DW1 gone to the extent of

deposing that he has no acquaintance with the plaintiff but he

knew her husband but he again says that plaintiff is his

relative. DW1 admitted that as per the written statement they

took advance of Rs.15 lakhs from the plaintiff and agreed to

return the amount without any interest within 15 months. In

the cross examination of PW1, the learned counsel for the

defendant suggested few questions with regard to the financial

capacity of the plaintiff. On one hand, the defendant contends

that the plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend such a huge

amount and on the other hand, contends that he received Rs.15

lakhs from the plaintiffs with a promise to return the amount

without any interest within 15 months. These admissions and

contradictions made by DW1 raise any amount of suspicion on

his conduct.

16. The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision

MGP, J as_493_2023

in Ram Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 4 wherein the

Honourable Supreme Court observed that non disclosure of the

relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue

advantage would amount to fraud. However, there is no clarity as to

what were the relevant and material documents that were not

disclosed by the plaintiff.

17. Learned counsel for the defendants relied upon a decision in

Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by LRs v. Bishun Narain Inter College

and others 5, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court observed that

in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties

cannot be considered. It was further observed that no party should

be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and

material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case

set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the

adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a

fair trial it is imperative that the party should settle the essential

material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise. As

can be seen from the record, in the present case, there is no such

instance of submission of evidence by the plaintiff before the trial

Court without pleadings.

4 2022 Live Law (SC) 806 5 (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 555

MGP, J as_493_2023

18. Though the defendants have denied the case of the plaintiff on

various grounds, except the oral evidence of DW1, no documentary

evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendants either to establish

that plaintiff entered into dealership agreement with the defendants

or to prove that they have not borrowed any amount from the

plaintiff. On the other hand, on behalf of the plaintiff, not only the

plaintiff was examined as PW1 but also the attestors of the

promissory notes were examined as PWs 2 and 3. Though PWs 1 to

3 were extensively cross examined by the learned counsel for the

defendants, nothing was elicited from their cross examination, to

discard their testimony. The defendants have not denied their

signatures on cheque or promissory notes. Though the defendants

have pleaded that the plaintiff obtained their signatures on

promissory notes under coercion, threat and influence, they could

not bring to the notice of this Court as to what were the

circumstances, which prompted the plaintiff to obtain the signatures

of the defendants on promissory notes under coercion, threat and

influence. Further, the defendants have not placed any material to

establish that they have taken any steps to lodge any complaint

before the Police in respect of allegations of coercion, threat and

undue influence against the plaintiff. The defendants, who are the

MGP, J as_493_2023

appellants herein, have failed to substantiate any of the grounds

raised by them to set aside the impugned judgment and decree.

19. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court do

not find any merits in the appeal to set aside the impugned

Judgment and Decree and in fact, the trial Court has elaborately

discussed all the aspects and arrived to an appropriate conclusion.

20. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order

as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Date: 23.08.2024 Note: LR copy to be marked B/o. AS