1
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE::
RAMACHANDRAPURAM.
PRESENT: Sri. M.SHANKAR RAO XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram.
Friday, the 7th day of March, 2025.
Appeal Suit No. 49 of 2018
Between: (Re-numbered as A.S.38/2024)
Medapati Krishna Reddy, s/o. Basivi Reddy, Hindu, aged 48 years, Business & Cultivation, D.No.1-71, Machavaram village, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari district, Anaparthi JCJ Limits… Appellant/ Plaintiff
And
Kanchi Aruna Kumari, w/o. D.Uma Maheswara Rao, Hindu, aged 47 years, Employee in Endowments Department,O/o.EndowmentsOffice,
Ramachandrapuram Town and Mandal, RCPM PJCJ...Respondent/
E.G.District.defendant
On appeal against the decree and judgment dated 04.08.2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram in
O.S. No.305 of 2015
Between:
Medapati Krishna Reddy, S/o. Basivi Reddy, Hindu, aged 48 years, Business & Cultivation, D.No.1-71, Machavaram village, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari district, Anaparthi JCJ Limits … Plaintiff
And
Kanchi Aruna Kumari, W/o. D.Uma Maheswara Rao, Hindu, aged 47 years, Employee in Endowments Department, O/o. Endowments Office, Ramachandrapuram Town and Mandal, RCPM PJCJ … Defendant E.G.District.
2
The appeal suit coming on 28.02.2025 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri B.Sadasiva Rao, Advocate for appellant/plaintiff and of Sri K.Satyanarayana Reddy, Advocate for Respondent/defendant, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :–
J U D G M E N T
1.This is an appeal filed against the decree and judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram in O.S.No.305/2015
dated 04.08.2017, wherein the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Ramachandrapuram has dismissed the suit for recovery of money filed by the appellant/ plaintiff.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties to the appeal are referred with the same status as they are arrayed in the suit. Hence, the appellant herein referred as plaintiff and the respondent herein are referred as defendant.
3.The plaintiff contend that the Judgment and decree of the Senior
Civil Judge’s court, Ramachandrapuram is contrary to law, without
application of mind and against law weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The trial court ought to have decreed the suit and mechanically dismissed the suit without applying proper mind and erred in dismissing the suit. The trial court also erred in shifting the burden on the appellant and dismissed the suit basing on assumptions and imagination and failed to see the entire contents of cross examination of the plaintiff counsel and failed to conclude that the evidence of plaintiff is sufficient to prove his case. The trial court erred in concluding that the 3 appellant failed to prove his capacity, even though there is no proper cross examination on this aspect. The trial court erred in to see the evidence in respect of admitted facts of the defendant is sufficient to decree the suit and simply gave finding that the plaintiff failed to prove his case. The trial court also erroneously concluded that the appellant is having burden to prove his case and shifted the burden of proof on appellant which is against the principles of settled law. The trial court also erred in not answering the issues in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court failed to see the evidence on record in respect of findings giving in its judgment and simply drawn such a wrong inference without appreciating oral evidence of plaintiff and erred in believing the version of the defendant with regard to the execution of promissory note i.e.
Ex.A.1. The trial court ought to have appreciate the evidence on record in favour of the appellant with all the issues and ought to have disbelieved the evidence of the respondent. The findings of the trial court is imaginary and did not apply proper mind and gave judgment on assumptions and imagination and not as per law. Hence, this appeal.
4.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ defendant vehemently opposed the grounds of appeal and contended that the trial court has correctly evaluate the evidence available on record and appreciated the documentary evidence filed by both parties on right perspective in arriving at conclusion that the appellate/plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as prayed for and the relief prayed by the plaintiff is not in consonancewith the pleadings of the plaintiff. Hence, 4 the Judgment and decree passed by the trial court deserves/confirms while dismissing the appeal.
5.The brief averments as per the plaint are:
The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 23.12.2012 for the purpose of her family expenses and to discharge sundry debts, executed an on demand promissory note on even date in the presence of attestors and scribe by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% p.a. to the plaintiff or at his order. On repeated demands, she procrastinated the same by one pretext or other without paying anything to the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.03.02.2014 to the defendant and the said notice was received by the defendant and failed to comply the demand of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.
6.On the other hand, defendant filed a written statement. In the written statement denied all the allegations leveled against her by the plaintiff and further submitted that she never borrowed an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- and never executed an on demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 23.12.20212. She is working as an employee in
Endowments department and having sufficient income from her job and there is no necessity to borrow any amount from the plaintiff. She further contended that the 1st attestor by name M.Sridharreddy used to do money lending business in the office of this defendant. The said
Sridharreddy used to collect higher interest from them. On one occasion some co-employees put the matter to police and police warned 5 the said Sridharreddy. Due to the said reason the said Sridharreddy colluded with the plaintiff and forged the signature and thumb impression of this defendant and created the suit pronote. The alleged suit promissory note is lot of variations. The said Sridhar reddy is behind back of the entire suit litigation. After receipt of pre-suit notice, the defendant came to know that the plaintiff is not having any financial capacity to lend such huge amount and he is a white card holder. The main intention of the said Sridharreddy with a view to cuase loss this defendant and with a view to create mental trouble and with a view to get wrongful gain from this defendant. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial court has framed the following issues for trial:
1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?
2. To what relief?
8.To prove the case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 and also got examined scribe of Ex.A.1 as P.W.2.
The defendant examined herself as D.W.1 but no documents are marked on her behalf.
9.After considering the oral and documentary evidence of both the parties the trial court dismissed the suit without costs.
10.Heard both the counsels and perused the material available on record.
6
11. Now the points for consideration are:
1. Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for in the suit?
2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is sustainable in law and on facts?
3. To What relief?
12.POINTS Nos.1 and 2:
In a suit for pronote the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution and consideration. However the defendant has been denying the execution of the promissory note including the consideration under suit pronote. The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution and due consideration. The plaintiff has filed the chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination as P.W.1 where he reiterated the same facts has averred in the plaint the suit promissory note marked as Ex.A.1 i.e. promissory note dt.23.12.2012. In support of the oral testimony of P.W.1, the evidence of P.W.1 was disputed in cross-examination about the execution of the promissory note and passing of consideration and also the acquaintance of the plaintiff with the defendant and it is also elicited the
P.W.1 not cultivating the temple lands and not a Trustee of any of the temples. Further it is also elicited that P.W.1 is having a white ration card.
13.It is the testimony of D.W.1 that she is working in Endowments
Department as an employee and she has no necessity to borrow the amounts from the plaintiff and she never executed suit promissory note 7 in favour of the plaintiff and no consideration was passed. It is the testimony of D.W.1 that one Sridhar Reddy who is the employee in the department used to lend the amounts to other employees for higher rate of interest and on one occasion the matter went up to the police and in that connection she took active role, in keeping the same in mind developed grudge against her and got created Ex.A.1 with the assistance of plaintiff and attestors and scribe and got filed the suit to harass her for wrongful gain. In support of her contention no kind of evidence is let in
14.As stated earlier the initial burden rests upon the plaintiff to prove the due execution and consideration when once the defendant denied the same.
15.Ex.A.1 suit promissory note shows that the defendant has borrowed amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and Ex.A.1 bear the signature and thumb impression of the defendant on the revenue stamp affixed on it and one Sridhar Reddy and one K.S.B.Sankar, attestors and one Ramana Raju is scribe. The plaintiff examined the scribe of Ex.A.1 as P.W.2 who categorically stated that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff under taking to repay the same with interest 12% per annum and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant put her signature and thumb impression on the promissory note and the said transaction has taken place in his presence. The evidence of P.W.2 is disputed during his cross examination and elicited 8 that he went to the house of plaintiff on the date of Ex.A.1 and the defendant instructed to scribe the promissory note and he has no acquaintance with the plaintiff. The above testimonies elicited during the cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 is no way helpful to the case of the defendant to discredit their testimonies. Hence by examining P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A.1 suit promissory note the plaintiff could establish the execution of Ex.A.1 suit promissory note by the defendant and thereby the plaintiff discharged their initial burden as to the execution of
Ex.A.1 suit pronote by the defendant. When once the execution of suit promissory note is established the presumption under Section 118 of
Negotiable Instruments Act will come into operation, the said presumption give aid to the plaintiff that the suit promissory note supported by consideration and it is to be presumed that the suit promissory note supported by consideration until the contrary is proved however the said presumption is rebuttable. It is for the defendant to rebut the said presumption while adducing cogent and reliable evidence.
AS already stated the said presumption is rebuttable in nature and to rebut the defendant can rely on direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or presumption of law or fact and when such rebuttable evidence of defendant is to satisfaction of the court the evidential burden shift back to the plaintiff who has also legal burden of disappearance of the above noted presumption and it is a settled law that the above presumption will not come back to rescue of the plaintiff.
16.Defendant is examined in chief as D.W.1 reiterated the same facts as contended in the written statement. The evidence of D.W.1 disputed 9 during the cross examination and elicited the defendant has no enmity with the P.W.2. Further it is elicited that she do not know the P.W.2 and
Sridhar Reddy. Further D.W.1 denied receiving of notice from the plaintiff and also the signature on the acknowledgment i.e. Exs.A.2 and
A.3 in such a case if the defendant not put her signature and thumb impression on the promissory note and acknowledgment and they are not that of her she would have to take steps for sending the suit promissory note along with the admitted signatures to the hand writing expert for examining with the disputed signature and thumb impression on Ex.A.1 to prove the genuineness of the signature and thumb impression of the defendant. It is the contention of D.W.1 that she filed the application before the trial court to send the signature and thumb impression to the hand writing expert but on perusal of the record no such application was filed by the defendant as contended by her especially when she has taken a plea of forgery. Therefore the plea of the forgery not established by the defendant. Further it is elicited during the course of cross examination of P.W.1 about his acquaintance with the defendant but it is not the case of the defendant that the plaintiff is totally a stranger to her. Further D.W.1 who deposed that one Sridhar
Reddy who is employee in department used to lend amount on higher rate of interest to other employees and the matter went up to the police and police warned Sridhar Reddy and in that event she took active role and keeping the same in mind and developed grudge against the defendant an created suit pronote and file suit through the plaintiff with the assistance of the attestors and scribe and to establish the same no 10 reliable evidence placed by the defendant in the matter. Furthermore the defendant during the course of cross-examination categorically stated that she do not know one Sridhar Reddy. It is also not the case of the defendant that she is having enmity with the plaintiff when that is so the case put up by the defendant is not believable. This court relied on a decision reported in 2008(4) ALD 15 (SC)Mallavarapu
Kasivisweswararao Vs. Tadikonda Ramulu firm and others wherein the lordships held that “Mere interested word of the defendant as to non- passing of consideration is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of passing of consideration laid down under Section 118 (A) of N.I.Act.”
17.However in the absence of evidence any such reliable or credible evidence on behalf of the defendant it cannot be said that the defendant pleaded and proved her case by placing preponderance of probabilities in support of her case. As discussed earlier, the earlier testimonies of
P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.3. The initial burden is lies on the plaintiff stands discharged and the plaintiff lend the amount to the defendant under Ex.A.1 suit promissory note is proved beyond preponderance of probabilities. Plaintiff therefore is entitled to recovery the suit amount from the plaintiff.
18.Hence findings recorded by the trial court are not in accordance with the law and therefore interference of the court is required with the finding recorded by the trial court. The appellant is therefore entitled for setting aside the judgment and decree made by the Senior Civil Judge’s
Court, Ramachandrapuram, accordingly the points are answered.
11
19.In the result, the appeal is allowed with throughout costs by setting aside the decree and judgment in O.S.No.305/2015 dated 04.08.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge’s Court,
Ramachandrapuram Consequently the suit in O.S.305/2015 is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of
Rs.4,25,700/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on
principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade II, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court this the 7 th day of March, 2025.
XIII Additional District Judge, Ramachandrapuram.
No additional oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side during appeal.
XIII Additional District Judge, Ramachandrapuram.