1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KOVUR
Friday, the 24th day of April, 2015.
Present:-- Sri D.BALAKRISHNAIAH.
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOVUR.
O.S.No.26/2014
Ganjam Rajeswari.. . .Plaintiff.
.Vs.
Potluru Suresh . . .Defendant
This suit is having come before me on 15.4.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Raja Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri A.Chennaiah
Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.66,440/- basing on suit promissory note dt:10.9.2012 and with costs.
2. The averments of the plaintiff case are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 10.9.2012 and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand. In spite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay the amount due under the promissory note. The plaintiff got issued legal notice on 11.1.2014, but there is no reply from the defendant. The defendant is not an agriculturist and she is not entitled for benefits of Act IV of 1938. Therefore, prayed to grant decree in favour of plaintiff for the suit amount.
3. The defendant filed written statement denying the material allegations and submitted that the plaintiff is running private chits, in which he is one of the scriber and he paid entire subscription amount on 10.1.2014. Due to previous 2 grudge, the plaintiff forged the signature of defendant and filed this suit for wrongful gain. Therefore, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed.
1. Whether suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?
and
3. To what relief?
5. During course of trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to
Ex.A.3 were marked. In support of the case of the plaintiff, P.W.2 and P.W.4 were examined and the evidence of P.W.3 was eschewed. The defendant was examined as D.W.1 and no document was marked on behalf of the defendant.
6. Heard. The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed written arguments.
Issue No.1: “Whether suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the
defendant?”
7. The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed an amount of
Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff on 10.9.2012 and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum payable to her or to her order on demand. Per contra, the defendant submitted that the plaintiff is running private chit, in which the defendant is subscriber and the defendant paid entire subscription on 10.1.2014. Due to grudge, the plaintiff forged the signature of defendant and filed this suit. When the said plea was raised by the defendant, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the suit promissory note is valid and genuine and the defendant executed the same by borrowing amount. The plaintiff, to substantiate her contention, filed her chief- examination affidavit reiterating the averments of the plaint. During cross- examination, it was elicited that P.W.1 used to lend money to known persons, as she got source of income and she filed number of suits and in most of the 3 promissory notes, P.W.2 was the scribe, who is father-in-law of P.W.1. P.W.1 testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- at her house between 10.00 and 10.30 a.m., on 10.9.2012. She also stated that at the time of borrowing amount, defendant, scribe, one Padma, Penchalaiah and plaintiff were present. The learned counsel for the defendant suggested that one promissory note was obtained in the private chits and the same was pressed into service, which was denied by her. Therefore, it is evident that the defendant executed the promissory note in favour of plaintiff in respect of the chits.
8. P.W.2 who is the scribe and related to plaintiff was examined and he specifically testified that the plaintiff lend Rs.50,000/- in denomination of Rs.500/- notes and the transaction took place between 10.00 and 10.30 a.m., at the house of P.W.1. He also stated that he is in the habit of scribing the promissory notes.
The evidence of P.W.3 was eschewed, as she did not turn up. P.W.4 also filed his chief-examination affidavit as he witnessed the transaction under Ex.A.1.
During cross-examination, he stated that he did not know the contents of his chief-examination affidavit including his age. There is no material evidence elicited from P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4.
9 Ex.A.1, which is suit promissory note clearly shows that the defendant executed the same by borrowing Rs.50,000/- on 10.9.2012, which was scribed by P.W.2 and attested by P.W.3 and P.W.4.
10 The defendant was examined as D.W.1 by filing his chief-examination affidavit reiterating the averments of his written statement. During cross- examination, he stated that he know the plaintiff, since his childhood and denied the signatures shown to him on his chief-examination affidavit, written statement, vakalath, duplicate Court summon, postal acknowledgment and Ex.A.1. So, when the defendant resorted to deny his signatures available on record, then it is 4 required to obtain sworn affidavit from the concerned advocate as per the authority reported in AIR 1999 SC 2544 between K.S.Satyanarayana vs.
V.R.Nageswara Rao. The lordship held that 'where the defendant denied his signatures on vakalath and written statement, then the recording of evidence shall be stopped and direct the concerned advocate to file affidavit and decide the case”. Accordingly, the concerned advocate representing the defendant filed sworn affidavit stating that the defendant engaged him and he prepared the written statement at the instructions of defendant and the defendant also signed on chief-examination affidavit. Therefore, it is suffice to draw inference that the defendant is made up his mind to deny his signatures available on record intentionally.
11 In view of above factual circumstances, as the execution of Ex.A.1 was admitted by the defendant by very suggestion that the promissory note was pressed into service, which was available with plaintiff regarding chit transaction, then the presumption under section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act will play role in favour of plaintiff with regard to consideration and date of execution.
When there is no contrary evidence let in by the defendant, then the Court is of the opinion that Ex.A.1 promissory note is proved to be true, valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly, the issue is answered.
Issue No.2: “ Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?” 12 The plaintiff got issued Ex.A.2 legal notice and the defendant admitted that he received the same, but he denied the signature on postal acknowledgment. Thereby, the plaintiff made valid demand to pay the amount, but the defendant intentionally evaded to pay the same, which forced her to file the suit.
5 13 In view of finding in Issue No.1 that the plaintiff proved Ex.A.1 promissory note to be true, valid and genuine, then the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed. Accordingly, the issue is answered.
Issue No.3: “To what relief”?
14. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs.
The defendant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.66,440/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till realisation on the
principal amount of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by
me in open court, this the 24 th day of April, 2015.
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
Kovur.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT:
PW.1 : Ganjam Rajeswari. D.W.1: Potluru Suresh.
P.W.2: Peteti Kondaiah.
P.W.3: P.Padma (Eschewed).
P.W.4: G.Penchalaiah.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PLAINATIFF:--
Ex.A.1: The suit promissory note dt: 10.9.2012.
Ex.A.2: O/c.Legal notice dt:11.1.2014.
Ex.A.3: Postal Acknowledgment.
FOR DEFENDANT : Nil.
PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KOVUR.
6