1
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::
MADANAPALLE:
Present:- Smt.N.PADMAVATHI, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle.
Thursday, the 22 nd (Twenty Second) day of July, 2021
OS No. 86 OF 2017
Sreerama Venkatadri, S/o Subbanna, Hindu, aged 51 years, Cultivation, residing at Kayalavandlapalle, H/o Rangasamudram Village, PTM Mandal.
... Plaintif
Vs.
Thellagorla Kubera, S/o T.Venkateshu, Hindu, aged 48 years, Business, residing at Rapoorivandlapalle, H/o Rangasamudram Village, PTM Mandal.
... Defendant
This suit is coming on 14-07-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.M.Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintif and of Sri
K.Manunatha Reddy, Advocate for defendant and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
01.This is a suit filed by the plaintif for recovery of
Rs.6,84,267/- from the defendant together with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of realization.
2 02. The Case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:
On 10.05.2014 defendant borrowed a sum of
Rs.4,00,000/- in cash from the plaintif for his legal necessities and justifiable causes by agreeing to repay the same together with interest thereon @ 24% Per annum on demand either by the plaintif or to his order and in evidence thereof, he has executed the suit promissory note on 10.05.2014 in favour of plaintif at
Kayalavandlapalle. Subsequently despite repeated demands made by the plaintif to discharge the debt due under the suit promissory note, defendant went on postponing the same on some or other pretext. Hence, the suit.
03.The contents of the written statement in brief is as follows:
Defendant filed his written statement denying all such allegations and averments leveled against him in the plaint. His contention is that he has approached one R.Vema Reddy for loan of
Rs.2,75,000/- on 06.08.2015 who inturn insisted the defendant to execute Regular Registered Sale Deed in respect of immovable landed property in his favour towards security, with an agreement that he will execute a re-conveyance deed in favour of defendant on repayment of entire loan amount with interest. Accordingly on 06.08.2015 defendant executed a Registered Sale Deed in respect of written statement schedule property in favour of R.Vema Reddy and inturn R.Vema Reddy executed an agreement on the same day i.e., 06.08.2015, for re-conveyance of such written statement schedule property in favour of the defendant on repayment of entire loan amount of Rs.2,75,000/- due to him together with interest. As per the terms of said agreement for re-conveyance executed by R.Vema 3
Reddy defendant has to pay the loan amount together with interest and shall obtain a re-conveyance deed from him. Defendant came to know that R.Vema Reddy executed a Registered Sale Deed in respect of same written statement schedule property in favour of
P.Narayana Reddy on 12.01.2016. So, the defendant has sent a legal notice dt. 19.09.2016 to R.Vema Reddy and P.Narayana Reddy demanding them to execute re-conveyance deed in respect of written statement schedule property after receiving the amount due from him to them. On that P.Narayana Reddy sent a Reply notice dt.
03.10.2016 with false allegations. As such defendant filed O.S.
No.236/2016 on the file of this court for execution of re-conveyance deed or Registered Sale Deed in respect of written statement schedule property after receiving the amount due from the defendant to them and the said suit is pending for disposal. Meanwhile, the said persons have developed grudge against the defendant and they in collusion with plaintif have created the alleged suit promissory note dt.10.05.2014 by forging the signatures of defendant in order to harass him and to get him to their terms in respect of written statement schedule property.
04. It is further submitted that defendant has never borrowed any amount from the plaintif and never executed suit promissory note dt. 10.05.2014 for Rs.4,00,000/- , defendant has no money dealings with the plaintif. In fact, plaintif sent a legal notice dt.03.10.2016 to the defendant demanding him to pay the alleged debt due under suit promissory note dt.10.06.2014, for which defendant sent a reply notice dt.13.10.2016 by enclosing a money order for Rs.50/- with a request to send the xerox copy of alleged promissory note dt.10.05.2014 to the defendant, to give proper reply.
Plaintif received the same, but failed to send the xerox copy of 4 alleged promissory note. Further by suppressing exchange of legal notices between plaintif and defendant he filed the present false suit.
05. It was further contended that plaintif has no capacity to lend such an huge amount to the defendant and also contended that plaintif in collusion with the attestors and scribe of suit promissory note had created promissory note for Rs.4,00,000/-. Even the numerical number “1” on the top of the suit promissory note is altered as “4” . So the suit promissory note is materially altered.
Hence there is no cause of action for filing the present suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
06.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:-
1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant?
2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
07. On behalf of plaintif he got himself examined as PW-1 and also examined two attestors of suit promissory note as PW.2 and
PW.3 and got marked Ex.A.1 i.e., suit promissory note dt.10.05.2014.
On behalf of defendant he alone himself got examined as
DW-1 and Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-8 were marked.
08.Heard arguments. Counsel for defendant even submitted the written arguments in addition to oral arguments.
09.ISSUE NO:1
As argued by the learned counsel for defendant and as admitted by the learned counsel for plaintif the initial burden of 5 establishing the due execution of suit promissory note dt.10.05.2014 marked as Ex.A-1 is on the part of plaintif and it is only after discharging such initial burden, the burden shifts on the defendant to prove his contention of forgery and material alteration and fabrication of suit promissory note, in the circumstances as pleaded by him. In order to discharge the initial burden of establishing his case, as stated supra, plaintif got examined himself as PW.1 and also examined two attestors of suit promissory note as PW.2 and PW.3 respectively. As could be seen from the careful perusal contentions put forth by defendant in his written statement, in fact he never took a plea that the plaintif is totally a stranger to the defendant and it is admitted fact s that both the villages i.e., Kayalavandlapalle and
Rapoorivandlapalle Villages from which plaintif and defendant hails from are the villages H/o Rangasamudram Village of PTM Mandal.
10.The careful perusal of evidence given by PW-1 which includes the answers elicited during the cross-examination of PW-1, made it clear that the plaintif is resident of Kayalavandlapalle who possesses more than Ac.10.00 cents of landed property in
Rangasamudram Village and he is also in the habit of lending amounts to 3rd parties for interest by maintaining a book regarding the amounts lend by him to 3rd parties towards hand-loan and the statement made by PW-1 in his cross-examination at page No.3 made it clear that he used to obtain Promissory notes whenever he lend amounts to 3rd parties and only in the case of lending amount as hand-loan, “he used to maintain a book regarding the repayments made by such persons. The said piece of evidence is well corroborated by PW-2. 1st attestor of suit promissory note, who deposed in his cross-examination that he too obtained hand loan from plaintif earlier for which he did not execute any promissory note 6 or cheque. Furthermore, in the cross-examination of PW-2 it was suggested to him that plaintif is doing money lending business and lent amount to 20 to 30 persons. Even PW-3, the 2nd attestor of suit promissory note categorically deposed in his cross-examination that the plaintif is doing money lending business besides cultivation.
Furthermore, as argued by the counsel for plaintif no suggestion was posed to PW1 to PW.3 that plaintif is not doing any such money lending business. Even in the chief-examination affidavit of DW-1 no such statement was made by defendant that plaintif is not doing any such money lending business as deposed by PW-1 to PW-3 and as suggested by him to PW-2. So whatever, the contention put forth by defendant that plaintif has no such financial capacity to lend such a huge amount to the defendant cannot be believed to be true or held to be proved.
11. No doubt, during the cross-examination of PW-1, it was elicited by counsel for defendant that plaintif is having a white ration card in which his annual income is shown as Rs.30,000/- PA and that he is also drawing old aged pension of Rs.2,250/- besides holding a white ration card. But that itself is not suffice to come to a conclusion that plaintif has no financial capacity to lend amount to defendant.
Because the well corroborated and convincing evidence given by
PW1 to PW.3 made it clear that plaintif possesses landed property in
Kayalavandlapalle and the statement made during the cross- examination of PW-1 revealed that plaintif is having Rs.8,00,000/- in his savings bank account by the date of recording his cross- examination.
12.Furthermore, as stated supra defendant himself admitted that the plaintif is doing money lending business by virtue of such suggestion posed to PW.2 during his cross-examination. So what all 7 the answers elicited during the cross-examination of PW-1 i.e., holding a white ration card and drawing a old age pension are of no use to substantiate the plea taken by defendant that plaintif has no financial capacity to lend amount to defendant. So the decisions relied upon by the counsel for defendant (1) 2018 (3) Civil Court
Cases 0821 between Vasantha Vs. Sekhar (2) 2020 KR
(Karnataka) 227 between Mr. Manjunatha Vs. Mr.B.K.Subba
Rao in this regard are of no use. Because when once defendant himself admits the financial capacity of plaintif by virtue of suggestion posed to PW.2, question of raising a probable defence by the defendant as to non-existence of consideration would not arise.
13. Further the answers elicited during cross-examination of
PW-1 goes to show that it is ‘5’ days prior to Ex.A-1 transaction defendant requested the plaintif to lend Rs.4,00,000/- to him and as per the statement made by PW-1 in his cross-examination, he knows the defendant for the last 10 years as he had talking terms with the defendant whenever he used to go to B.Kothakota for the maintenance of his seven portioned house at B.Kothakota. Whereas
PW.2, 1st attestor of suit promissory note deposed that the said
B.Kothakota is at a distance of 9 KM from his village
Kayalavandlapalle from which village even the plaintif hails from.
Furthermore, the evidence given by PW-2 made it clear that he too having landed properties at Kayalavandlapalle and doing cultivation.
PW-1 in his cross-examination, also deposed that himself and PW-2 are having lands jointly and they are co-owners besides neighbours and child-hood friends. Whereas PW-2 deposed that he know the defendant since 10 years and he is also having knowledge that defendant is having landed property, though he do not know the extent possessed by defendant and also deposed that defendant‘s 8 wife was elected as Mandal President and both wife and husband used to come to his house and the house of plaintif whenever they visit Kayalavandlapalle. He also deposed that to his knowledge there is a facial acquaintance between plaintif and defendant. Even plaintif did not contend that there is any such close acquaintance between himself and defendant. But according to him, as stated in his cross-examination, he know the defendant since 10 years and he had talking terms with the defendant only at B.Kothakota where he is having a ‘7’ portioned house.
14.PW.1 also deposed that, though he do not know the property details of defendant, but he has knowledge that defendant possesses property. However it was elicited in his cross-examination that he do not know surname of the defendant and father’s name of the defendant and does not know as to how many children, defendant has and also about the extent of landed property possessed by defendant. But it is to be noted that as stated supra, defendant did not take any plea in his written statement that plaintif is totally a stranger to him. So such a contention raised by the defendant for the first time during the cross-examination of PW-1 is of no use. Because as per established principles of Law any amount of evidence let-in by a party without there being any basis in the pleadings is of no avail. So the close perusal of evidence given by PW.1 to PW.3 made it clear that plaintif is a person engaged in the business of money lending for interest and there is facial acquaintance between plaintif and defendant. Adding to it, PW.2 and PW.3 know the defendant for the last 10 to 15 years as per the statements made by them during their cross-examination. They both have knowledge that the defendant is possessing landed properties in Rangasamudram Village and PW.2 is none other than the neighbour of PW-1 and also a joint 9 land owner with PW-1. Both PW-2 and PW-3 are close relatives and have acquaintance with the plaintif. So, in these circumstances, such an acquaintance between plaintif and defendant is suffice to lend amount by the plaintif to defendant as submitted by the counsel for plaintif.
15. So, what all the answers elicited during the cross- examination of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the particulars of defendant and his family members are of no avail to rule out the possibility of lending amount by the plaintif to the defendant under Ex.A-1. Hence the decision relied upon by the counsel for defendant reported in 2013 (4) Civil Court cases 240 between C.Mohan Reddy Vs. Oltra
Ramesh. Wherein it was observed in para NO.13 that “ unless a person, who is in a position to lend money, knows another and is sure about his capacity to repay it is difficult to except that he would lend money to an unknown person” has no application to this case.
16.Further, defendant himself admitted in his written statement and also in his evidence that he borrowed Rs.2,75,000/- from one R.Vema Reddy in respect of which he executed a Registered
Sale Deed dt.06.08.2015 in respect of written statement schedule property towards security. Further during cross-examination of DW-1, he also deposed that he got Savings Bank Account in Co-operative
Society Bank, PTM from which bank also he borrowed loan. Further,
DW.1 also deposed that his wife elected and worked as MP, PTM
Mandal for a term 2 ½ years. So, these answers elicited during the cross-examination of DW-1 in a way supports and substantiates the case put forth by plaintif that defendant was in need of money during the relevant period and he was in habit of borrowing amounts from various sources like Bank loan, execution of a Registered Sale
Deed towards the security for availing loan from a private party like 10
R.Vema Reddy. So the possibility of borrowing amount by the defendant from a person like plaintif who was engaged in a business of money lending for interest, by executing Ex.A-1-promissory note cannot be ruled out.
17. At the same time, plaintif and the two attestors of suit promissory note categorically deposed in their evidence that on 10.05.2014, it is the defendant who purchased two revenue stamps and brought the printed format of pronote to the house of plaintif and it is in the presence of both the attestors and scribe of suit promissory note, he borrowed amount by receiving consideration of
Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintif in cash, in-turn executed Ex.A-1 promissory note in favour of plaintif by agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% PA. Further their evidence is also corroborated with each other on the aspect of such a money transaction took place in the house of plaintif at Kayalavandlapalle
Village. So, whatever the slight variation that took place in between the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, as PW-1 deposed that such a money transaction took place on 10.05.2014 at 05.00 PM in his house, whereas PW.2 deposed that such money transaction took place at the house of plaintif during afternoon hours and expressing inability to recollect the exact date and time of Ex.A.1 transaction by PW-3, ( who has supported the case of plaintif on all material aspects regarding due execution of Ex.A.1 by defendant) will not render to brush away his evidence. Moreover he has corroborated the evidence
PW.1 and PW.2 that Ex.A.1 was scribed at the house of plaintif and it is in his presence only the money transaction covered under Ex.A.1 took place between plaintif and defendant. It clearly establishes the geuninesses of money transaction covered under Ex.A.1 on 10.05.2014 between plaintif and defendant as contended by the 11 plaintif. In the circumstances the statement made during cross- examination of PW.3 that his chief-examination affidavit was got prepared by plaintif is not going to come in the way of establishing the case of plaintif and in discharging his initial burden of establishing the due execution of Ex.A.1 and that it is well supported by consideration. Therefore even another decision relied upon by the counsel for defendant reported in 2005(6) ALD 211 between
P.Venkatamma and another Vs. Dontham Sulochana. Wherein it was observed at para 12 that “ In a suit for recovery of money, based on promissory note, the burden squarely rests upon the plaintif to prove the promissory note, in all respects, as required under law.
Evaluation of possibilities for the defendant to borrow the amount, or his necessities, do not have any role to play in this regard” also has no application to the present case as facts and circumstances of both cases difer. Moreover, in this case, by examining PW.1 to PW.3, plaintif has successfully discharged his initial burden of establishing the genuineness of Ex.A.1 transaction. Therefore as per the ratio laid down in the reported decisions relied upon by the counsel for plaintif viz. (1) AIR 2008 SC 2898 between Mallavarapu Kasivisveswara
Rao Vs. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm and others. (2) 2006(2) ALT
202 between Bonala Raju and another Vs. Sarupura
Sreenivasulu (3) 1999(3) ALT 144 between Ponuganit. Subba
Rao Vs. Skihakollu Pulla Rao, when the initial burden is discharged by the plaintif by proving execution of a pronote by the defendant, he is entitled to draw presumption U/sec. 118 of NI Act and then the burden shifts on defendant to prove his plea of forgery etc., But, the defendant failed to elicit any such answers from PW.1 to PW.3 or could not adduce as such convincing evidence which probabilises non passing of consideration from plaintif to defendant, so as to held that the presumption drawn in favour of plaintif U/sec. 118 of Negotiable 12
Instrument Act in view of totally corroborated commencing evidence given by PW.1 to PW.3 is successfully rebutted by defendant.
Because as per the ratio laid down in a reported decision relied upon by plaintif viz., 2001(6) ALT 95DB between Duggineni Seshaigir
Rao Vs. Kothapalli Venkateswara Rao at para 12 “ the court is obliged to presume, until the contrary is proved, that the promissory note was made for consideration.”
18.Further as per ratio laid down in another decision relied upon by plaintif viz., 1999(4) ALT 480 between V.Surya Rao and others Vs. Guttula Gopala Krishna and others as observed at para 16 “Though a defendant is entitled to raise contradictory pleadings in defence, however the same vary from case to case.
Especially in the case of negotiable instruments, such pleas have to be strictly scrutinized in a proper perspective with in the limitations prescribed under the law and should not allow the defendant to go scot free with unsustained pleas. Here in this case, the plea of material alteration is also taken by the defendant that numerical number ‘1’ was altered as number ‘4’ on the top of the suit promissory note marked as Ex.A.1. Such a plea in a way substantiates the case put forth by plaintif about correctness of money transaction on 10.05.2014 between plaintif and defendant. If not question of material alteration would not arise. Because, if at all suit promissory note was not at all in existence by the date of issuing legal notice by the plaintif to the defendant on 03.10.2016, the served copy of which marked as Ex.B.4 and if at all no such promissory note was executed by defendant at any point of time in favour of plaintif or in favour of any 3rd party, the question of altering the amount in figures from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- by altering number ‘1’ to number ‘4’ would not arise at all. So, as argued by 13 the counsel for plaintif taking such a mutually destructive plea by the defendant in a way supports and substantiates the genuinesses of Ex.A.1-transaction as deposed by PW-1 to PW-3 in one voice.
19.Further, with regard to material alteration as seen from the careful and close perusal of Ex.A-1, to the naked eye no such material alteration a contended by defendant is being observed.
Because Numerical No.4 was written in Ex.A.1 at three places i.e., at the left top while mentioning the amount in figures and right top of
Ex.A.1 while mentioning the date and in the body of suit promissory note while mentioning the consideration in figures. But at all the said three places number ‘4’ was written in the same fashion. Whereas the defendant took a plea that only at the top of Ex.A.1 number ‘1’ was altered as number ‘4’. It is not his case that the consideration in letters mentioned in the body of suit promissory note was subsequently added i.e., after obtaining promissory note from the defendant. Furthermore, the case put forth by defendant is totally silent as to when and under what circumstances Ex.A.1-promissory note was given by the defendant either to the plaintif or to any 3rd party ( i.e., P.Narayana Reddy or by Vema Reddy) by mentioning the consideration at the top of the promissory note in figures as
Rs.1,00,000/-, so as to convert it as Rs.4,00,000/- by altering number ‘1’ to ‘4’. So it is clear that the said plea “material alteration” has basis at all. So, the decision relied upon by the counsel for defendant in this regard i.e., (1) 2019(Supp) Civil Court cases 0673 between S.Mohan Rao Vs. C.Doraswamy Reddy has no application to the present case as no such alteration as pleaded by defendant is visible to the naked eye in this case.
20. Further in view of straight suggestion posed to DW.1 at page 2 of his cross-examination that he has received Rs.4,00,000/- 14 from PW.1 and executed Ex.A.1 in the name of PW.1, the agreement advanced by the counsel for defendant that witness was not cross- examined on this particular plea of “Material alteration”, thereby it amounts to admission, has no legs to stand in the eye of law.
Consequently the decision relied upon in this regard viz., 2006 (2)
Punjab Law Journal 0580 between Baldev Singh Vs. Shinder
Pal Singh & another and 2007 (3) Civil Court Cases 0608
between Mohammad Ibrahim and others Vs. Smt. Muni @
Zinab Bee have no application to this case.
21.No doubt, to support and substantiate the contention put forth by defendant i.e., about execution of a Registered sale Deed dt.06.08.2015 at the time of borrowing Rs.2,75,000/- from R.Vema
Reddy of his village and about execution of sale deed by the said
R.Vema Reddy in favour of PW-2 in respect of same written statement schedule property deviating from the agreement arrived between defendant and R.Vema Reddy for execution of re-conveyance deed on repayment of amount by the defendant to the R.Vema Reddy and fling of a suit against R.Vema Reddy and P.Narayana Reddy for re- conveyance of the said written statement schedule property, defendant got exhibited office copy of plaint in O.S. No. 236/2016 on the file of this court as Ex.B.1. Further he also got marked the served copy of written statement of R.Vema Reddy and P.Narayana Reddy (PW2) in O.S. No. 236/2016 as Ex.B.2 and Ex.B.3 respectively.
22.At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention here that the same PW.2 who has arrayed 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 236/2016 while denying the plaint averments in O.S. No.236/2016, at para
No.11 and No.15 made a statement that he is ready to execute
Registered Sale Deed in favour of defendant herein in respect of said written statement schedule property on payment of sale 15 consideration of Rs.2,75,000/- with interest to him and it was also contended by him under Ex.B.3 that “it is in order to evade the payment of Rs.2,75,000/- with subsequent interest only” such an unenforceable re-conveyance agreement was created by defendant herein in collusion with the said Vema Reddy who has arrayed as 1st defendant in O.S. No. 236/2016. Where as the said Vema Reddy, has totally denied the case of defendant vide O.S. No. 236/2016 as evident from the contents of Ex.B.2.
23.Even DW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that the defendants in O.S. No.236/2016 have agreed to execute Registered
Sale Deed in his favour as and when he repay the balance sale consideration amount to them. Adding to it, more than one occasion during his cross-examination, he categorically made a statement that he has no enmity with the attestors and scribe of suit promissory note and the defendants in O.S. No. 236/2016. If that be the case collusion among the defendants in O.S. No. 236/2016 and the plaintif herein in creating the suit promissory note and filing the present suit by creating and fabricating Ex.A-1 promissory note in the name of plaintif in order to bring the defendant herein to the terms of defendants in O.S. No. 236/2016 as pleaded by defendant herein in his written statement is nothing but false. The answers elicited during the cross-examination of DW-1 that he did not give any police complaint against the plaintif soon after the receipt of suit summons from this court that plaintif created the suit promissory note by forging his signatures and the admission made by defendant in his cross-examination that he did not convene any panchayat after receipt of suit summons in this suit, supports and strengthens such an opinion arrived by this court. Because if at all any such promissory note was created, fabricated by forging the signatures of 16 defendant and by altering the numerical number 1 to 4 in the suit promissory note as alleged by defendant in all probable circumstances, defendant might have lodged a complaint against the plaintif herein and the defendants in O.S. No. 236/2016 or atleast would have convene panchayat as his wife worked as a Mandal
President. But it is not so.
24.Further it is to be noted that it is not the case of defendant at any point of time that he has already repaid the amount due to one R.Vema Reddy and inspite of it R.Vema Reddy and
P.Narayana Reddy are not willing to execute a re-conveyance deed/registered sale deed by PW-2 in favour of defendant in respect of written statement schedule property. In fact except making a statement in plaint vide O.S. No. 236/2016 (marked as Ex.B.1 at page
No.4), no other piece of evidence produced by the defendant before the court that he was ready and willing to repay the amount taken from R.Vema Reddy either to R.Vema Reddy or to P.Narayana Reddy.
On the other hand, DW.1 admitted in his cross-examination that both the said two persons have already agreed to execute registered sale deed as and when he repay the said balance consideration to them.
So, in these circumstances, by virtue of totally corroborative evidence given by PW1 to PW.3 about due execution of Ex.A-1-promissory note by the defendant in favour of plaintif after receipt of consideration of
Rs.4,00,000/- and as nothing could be elicited during the cross- examination of PW1 to PW.3 that there is any such nexus between
Ex.A.1 transaction and the transaction that took place between defendant R.Vema Reddy, I hold that plaintif could successfully discharged his initial burden of establishing the due execution of
Ex.A.1- promissory note by the defendant and that it is well supported by consideration as mentioned thereon and is entitled to draw 17 presumption that Ex.A.1 is supported by consideration as provided
U/sec. 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
25.Then as stated supra, the burden now shifts on the defendant to substantiate his plea of forgery and material alteration and that suit promissory note was brought into existence in the circumstances as pleaded by him. But to substantiate such pleas, as stated supra nothing material could elicited during cross-examination of PW.1 to PW.3 except the truthfulness of transaction that took place between defendant and R.Vema Reddy who inturn executed sale deed in respect of same written statement schedule property in favour of Narayana Reddy on 12.01.2016. But, it totally a diferent transaction arrived among defendant, R.Vema Reddy (money lender) and P.Narayana Reddy ( money lender/PW2) and there is no such nexus between the said transaction and the money transaction between plaintif and defendant on 10.05.2014 covered under
Ex.A.1.
26. Furthermore, except taking a plea of forgery in fact at no point of time defendant come forward with a request to send his admitted signatures for comparison with his disputed signatures on
Ex.A.1, to substantiate his plea of “forgery”, despite number of questions posed in that regard by the plaintif during cross- examination of DW-1. Thereby defendant has failed to establish that
Ex.A-1 is a forged document as contended by him. Therefore even the two more decisions relied upon by defendant viz. (1) 1961 AIR (SC) 1361. (2) 2007 (2) Apex Court Judgment (SC)96 regarding standard of proof for rebutting presumption drawn U/sec. 118 of
Negotiable Instrument Act have also no application to the present case on hand.
18
27.Even the non-disclosure of exchange of legal notice by plaintif and defendant marked under Ex.B.4 and Ex.B.5 prior to filing of suit, in the plaint is a trivial issue in this particular case. Because
PW.1 in his cross-examination admitted about issuing of Ex.B.3 legal notice by him. However claimed ignorance regarding receipt of
Ex.B.4 reply notice by his counsel, which is quite natural and reasonable, as in many cases parties may not have knowledge of receipt of reply by his counsel from his opponent as by then he made up his mind to institute a suit for recovery of money and it became a routine formality to issue legal notice demanding for repayment of debt due under pronote, before instituting a suit for recovery of money on the strength of a pronote. So even the decision relied on by counsel for defendant viz., 2004 (1) ALT 537 between
Malamma W/o Late Balaram Versus Permanand. Where under it was held that “ since the plaintif knowingly and deliberately made a false statement in the plaint that defendant did not send reply to
Ex.A.4 notice sent by him, he would not be entitled to the equitable relief o specific performance”, has no application to this case.
Because here in this case no such equitable relief claimed by plaintif and no such deliberate false statement made in the plaint.
28.Hence, in these circumstances, I hold that the plaintif has successfully established his case that the suit pronote is true valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.
29.Issue No.2:
Having regard to finding given to issue No.1 and as the suit amount was calculated very much in accordance with the interest rate mentioned under Ex.A.1 and as the suit is filed well within the time stipulated under Law, I hold that the plaintif is entitled for the 19 suit claim as prayed for. Accordingly, issue No.2 is also answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.
30.Issue No.3:
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for recovery of
Rs.6,84,267/- together with subsequent interest @ 12% Per annum on the principal sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter with interest @ 6% Per annum on the principal sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of decree to till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22 nd day of July, 2021.
Sd/-N.Padmavathi
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MADANAPALLE.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintif
PW1: Sreerama Venkatadri PW2: Pappu Narayana Reddy PW3: K.Mallikarjuna Reddy.
Defendant:
DW1: T.Kubera.
Exhibits marked on behalf of Plaintiff
Ex. A1: Suit promissory note dt. 10.05.2014 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif.
Exhibits marked on behalf of Defendant
Ex.B1 : The office copy of the Plaint in O.S.No.236/2016 on the file of the
Additional Senior Civil Judge of Madanapalle.
Ex.B2 : The served copy of the written statement filed on behalf of R. Vema Reddy in O.S.No.236/2016 on the file of the Additional senior Civil Judge of Madanapalle.
Ex.B3 : The served copy of the written statement filed on behalf of P. Narayana Reddy in O.S.No.236/2016 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil
Judge of Madanapalle.
Ex.B4 : The served copy of the legal notice, dated:03.10.2016 along with postal cover issued by the plaintif to the defendant.
20
Ex.B5 : The office copy of the reply notice, dated:13.10.2016 issued by the defendant to the legal notice dated 03.10.2016.
Ex.B6 : The postal receipt.
Ex.B7 : The money order receipt.
Ex.B8 : The served acknowledgement.
Sd/-N.Padmavathi
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MADANAPALLE