Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
E. Srinivasa Goud vs T.Maddiletamma, on 22 September, 2021
Author: M.Venkata Ramana
Bench: M.Venkata Ramana
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA
SECOND APPEAL No.422 of 2021
JUDGMENT:
This second appeal is presented by the defendant.
2. The respondent as the plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of Rs.1,52,000/- based on a promissory note dated 10.12.2014 against the appellant.
3. The case of the respondent at the trial was that on 10.12.2014 the appellant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from her and executed the suit promissory note on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. Further case of the respondent was that inspite of repeated demands and issuance of a legal notice, since the appellant failed to repay the amount due, she was constrained to lay the suit.
4. The defence of the appellant at the trial was one of denial of execution of the suit promissory note. He tried to explain that the suit promissory note was fabricated taking advantage of the transactions he had with one Sri Madhu, his friend and since he had borrowed from Sri Madhu under three different promissory notes, each for Rs.1,00,000/-. He also claimed that the amount due under these three promissory notes was repaid, in all, Rs.4,00,000/- and yet, Sri Madhu insisted to pay Rs.50,000/- towards additional interest.
5. On the pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial:
"1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?2
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount along with the costs and interest as prayed for?
3. To what relief?"
6. The parties went to trial. The respondent herself examined as P.W.1 and she relied on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The appellant examined himself as D.W.1 and he relied on Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 in support of his contention.
7. The learned trial Judge, on the material decreed the suit as prayed.
8. In appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the trial Court, it was confirmed, modifying the suit claim only to Rs.1,00,000/- since the suit claim was confined to that extent. In other respects, the learned appellate Judge confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial Court.
9. These are the circumstances under which the appellant presented the second appeal.
10. Heard Sri K.Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, at the stage of admission. Finding that this is a case where interference of this Court is not necessary, since there are no substantial questions of law made out by the appellant, having regard to the nature of dispute as well as the decrees and judgments of both the Courts below, it is being now disposed of.
11. The point to consider and determine now is, in the circumstances, when there are consistent findings relating to liability of the appellant towards the suit promissory note, when the claim is 3 purely based on facts, is it necessary for this Court to reconsider the same now and if it is permissible under Section 100 CPC? POINT:
12. In a suit of this nature, where there is denial of execution of the suit promissory note, the burden is on the plaintiff, namely, the respondent herein to prove her claim. In usual course, proof of a promissory note, in view of denial of its execution, should be based on the evidence of the attestors and if necessary of the scribe to support the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge observed that having regard to the nature of the defence set up by the appellant, burden is very heavy on him to prove that the suit promissory note is an outcome of forgery. It is a serious error on the part of the learned trial Judge. The learned appellate Judge did not bestow attention on this important question, though Section 101 of the Evidence Act ordains that it is for the plaintiff to prove the claim against the defendant and that the legal burden remains constant without getting shifted.
13. The testimony of P.W.1 in proof of the suit transaction was accepted by both the Courts below, though it is highly interested. No other witnesses were examined at the trial on behalf of the respondent in this context, in proof of Ex.A1 suit promissory note.
14. However, both the Courts below relied on clear admissions of the appellant as D.W.1 at the trial in this respect.
15. The appellant as D.W.1 admitted in cross-examination that the signature appearing on the revenue stamp on the suit promissory note is his signature. This promissory note is in a printed proforma. 4 Curiously, instead of filling up the portion to describe the lendor, the name of the respondent is appearing by means of a rubber stamp impression. But the appellant himself admitted the contents in the borrower column in Ex.A1 suit promissory note, being in his hand writing. He further admitted that the attestors named in Ex.A1 suit promissory note were present when he subscribed his signature thereon. Thus, a substantial portion of the contents of Ex.A1-suit promissory note stood admitted by the appellant himself at the trial.
16. Further, he admitted that there are no disputes between himself and Sri Madhu, who, according to him was responsible for fabricating Ex.A1 suit promissory note. Ex.B1 to Ex.B3-promissory notes which have been the basis for his defence, did not support his version in any manner. There is another admission of the appellant as D.W.1 that he did not file any document to show that he borrowed money from Sri Madhu and repaid.
17. In the presence of these pertinent admissions, which have significant effect to feed the contention of the respondent, it could not have been necessary for the respondent to lead any evidence in proof of due execution of Ex.A1 suit promissory note. The signature of the appellant is appearing on Ex.A1 suit promissory note as well as his description therein, at appropriate places where they ought to be. These circumstances raise a presumption relating to due execution of Ex.A1 by the appellant, conscious of its nature and being aware of the consequences in doing so. Thus, these circumstances offer necessary proof of execution of the suit promissory note by the appellant in favour of the respondent.
5
18. These factors were considered by both the Courts below and rightly recorded findings against the appellant. There is no reason to interfere with these concurrent and consistent findings. The learned appellate Judge is right in confining the relief to Rs.1,00,000/- since it was the only sum claimed in the plaint, towards relief.
19. Substantial questions of law stated in the grounds of appeal, are not at all based on the material on record. When the defence of the appellant is one of denial of execution of the suit promissory note, many of these questions refer as if the dispute is in respect of passing of consideration. Unmindful of consequences of the nature of the defence taken at the trial and the nature of questions sought to be made out as substantial questions of law, the memorandum of appeal seems to have been prepared.
20. Finding that no such questions as stated by the appellant much less as substantial questions of law arise for determination now, the second appeal has to be dismissed.
21. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the decree and judgment of the appellate Court. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
________________________ JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA Dt: 22.09.2021 RR 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA SECOND APPEAL No.422 of 2021 DATE: 22.09.2021 RR