Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs M/S.Sugesan And Co.(P) Ltd on 17 April, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
APPEAL SUIT No.697 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
1. Under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, the appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the decree and Judgment dated 09.10.2007 in O.S. No.311of 2005 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, 'trial court').
2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial court in this Judgment for convenience.
3. The brief averments culled out from the plaint are that the defendant borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff to construct his building, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 36% per annum and executed a suit promissory note. The defendant received consideration by en-cashing a cheque bearing No.634093, dated 16.07.1999. The defendant also executed a receipt for the said amount. In spite of repeated demands, the defendant paid some amounts from 25.08.1999 to 22.02.2003 as shown in the plaint. The payment made on 20.06.2002 was endorsed on the reverse of the promissory note. The defendant also made a payment of //2// TMR,J AS.No.697 of 2007 Rs.20,000/- on 22.02.2003; after deducting all the payments made, he became due an amount of Rs.8,51,610/- as of the filing date of the suit.
4. The defendant filed his written statement, denying all the allegations made in the plaint. He contended that he never availed loan from the plaintiff nor executed a promissory note in his favour. The alleged promissory note is in different handwriting and ink. The defendant has not received any legal notice from the plaintiff at any point of time.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:
1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount?
3) Whether the suit claim is within time?
4) To what relief?
6. During the trial, the plaintiff examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked six documents as Exs.A.1 to A.6. The defendant examined himself as DW.1 and got marked four documents as Exs.B1 to B4 marked.
7. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the Trial Court decreed the suit for Rs.8,51,610/- with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization, with costs.
//3// TMR,J AS.No.697 of 2007
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant herein is a minor as on the date of execution of Ex.A1 promissory note and ought to have dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant is incompetent to execute the suit promissory note; the appellant belongs to Schedule Tribe Andhra Pradesh Schedule Tribes Debt Regulation, 1970 renders all loans granted to S.T.'s by unlicensed moneylenders as null and void and unenforceable; As per Regulation No.4 where any member of an S.T. has paid any Creditor any amount in excess of or equal to the amount of principal whether by way of principal or interest or both such debt including the principal, shall be deemed to be wholly discharged. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the Trial Court is not supposed to have compared the disputed signatures.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the findings and observations of the learned Trial Court.
10. I have heard the arguments on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant and respondent. I have thoughtfully considered rival submissions and perused the material on record.
//4// TMR,J AS.No.697 of 2007
11. The following points arise for determination :
1. Whether the plaintiff has established that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- on the execution of the suit promissory note?
2. Whether the decree and Judgment passed by the Trial Court need any interference?
POINT Nos.1 & 2 :
12. The following facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff is a partnership firm with three partners, namely PW.1 - Allu Gowri Shankar Rao, Ruthala Viswasant and Pydi Kamalavathi. It is doing finance business by lending money. In support of the plaintiff's contention, Ex.A5 - Partnership deed and Ex.A6 - Firm Registration deed are relied on. PW.1 is the Managing Partner of the Plaintiff firm.
13. It is the evidence of PW.1 that on 16.07.1999, the defendant availed a loan amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in the presence of his father, who worked as Assistant Engineer in the Sales Department. Defendant's father is the scribe of the promissory note. PW.2 - G.Ramesh and Y.Apparao attested Ex.A1. In his evidence, PW.1 testified that the defendant approached the plaintiff through his father, his close friend. PW.2 also supported the evidence of PW.1 by depositing that in his presence; the defendant executed the suit promissory note. It is the evidence of PWs.1 //5// TMR,J AS.No.697 of 2007 and 2 that the defendant received the consideration amount through cheque No.634093, dated 16.07.1999. The defendant, who was examined as DW.1, has not stated in his evidence that he has not received the amount covered under the cheque. If so, he would have placed a bank record establishing that he has not en-cashed the same. He has not taken steps to summon the bank officials to prove the non- encashment of the cheque. The evidence of DW.1 in cross- examination shows that his father, who worked as Assistant Commissioner in the Commercial Tax Office, died in October 2003; DW.1 was employed in the Commercial Tax Department on Compassionate grounds after the demise of his father. The defendant's contest is that the Suit promissory note and Ex.A3 endorsement are forged. Though he stated in cross- examination that he could take steps for comparison of disputed signatures, for the reasons best known to him, he has not taken such steps. As such, it appears that the Trial Court had compared the signatures. Ex.A3 part-payment endorsement shows that the defendant is the scribe of the said endorsement. The defendant has not seriously disputed the case of the plaintiff that the Ex.A1 promissory note is scribed by the defendant's father. He also has not taken steps //6// TMR,J AS.No.697 of 2007 to contend that Ex.A3 is not in his handwriting. The plaintiff has no reason to fabricate the suit promissory note and part- payment endorsement by forging the handwritings of the defendant's father and defendant respectively as the Law does not contemplate scribing the document by executant's father. The plaintiff can conveniently engage third parties services for a scribing promissory note and part-payment endorsement. The said part-payment was made towards DD.No.984264. If he does not cause payment, he could have taken steps to prove that he has not made such payment through D.D.
14. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 manifestly establish execution of the suit promissory note Ex.A1 by the defendant. The defendant has not taken steps to show that Exs.A1 & A3 do not contain his signatures.
15. In a decision Duggineni Seshagirirao V. K.Venkatarao1 in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court held that:
"the plaintiff has been able to prove the execution of the document. If the document was disputed or doubted the onus was on the defendant to show that the document was 1 2001(6) A.L.T. 95 //7// TMR,J AS.No.697 of 2007 forgery because the presumption in favour of the plaintiff under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act".
16. In a decision Bonalaraju V. S. Sarupula Srinivas 2, wherein it is held that :
"once execution is proved the presumption under Section 118 of N.I. Act that it is supported by consideration automatically applies and the contention that the plaintiff is not only to establish the execution but also establish passing on the consideration is rejected".
17. In a decision G. Vasu Appellant V. Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri3, Respondents.
"Once the defendant shows either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or by use of other presumptions of Law or the fact that the promissory note is not supported by consideration in the manner stated in the promissory note or the manner stated in the suit notice or the pleading, the evidential burden shifts to the plaintiff and the legal burden of the plaintiff is revived, i.e., to prove that the promissory note is supported by consideration and at that stage, the presumption of Law covered by S.118" disappears and no longer subsists".
"It is further held that once both parties have adduced evidence the Court has to consider the same and the burden of proof loses all its importance".
18. In a decision Abbisetti Krishnamoorthy V. Singasani Raghuramaiah (died) per L.R.s4, wherein it is held that "Section 118 of the N.I Act shows that the presumption attached to passage of consideration (as is the subject matter of this appeal) just like other presumption also is clearly rebuttable and it is for the defendant to satisfy the Court that in a given case, the presumption cannot be drawn".
In light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, I now consider the facts of the case. 2 2006(2) ALD 202 3 AIR 1987 A.P. 139 Full Bench 4 2011(5) ALT 143 //8// TMR,J AS.No.697 of 2007
19. Such being the position of Law, the burden lies on the defendant to prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances, which would lead the Court to believe the non-existence of the consideration. If the defendant discharges the onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful and also the execution of the promissory note, the onus would be shifted to the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff will be obliged to prove the existence of the consideration.
20. Regarding the evidence, which is adverted to supra, this Court views that the defendant did not show satisfactory and reliable evidence or circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 regarding the execution of the promissory note by the defendant and passing of consideration. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is consistent regarding the execution of the promissory note by the defendant on receipt of the consideration amount. Though PWs.1 and 2 were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing was elicited to discredit their evidence. The plaintiff and his witness have no reason to fabricate the suit promissory note. PW.2 has no reason to depose falsehood against the defendant's interest, and he would gain nothing by supporting the plaintiff's case unless there is a truth in it. No evidence is placed by the defendant to show that he has enmity with PW.2 to depose //9// TMR,J AS.No.697 of 2007 falsehood against his case. However, even the rebuttal could be given by direct evidence or by proving the preponderance of probabilities on record.
21. The plaintiff has relied on Ex.A4 -registered sale deed dated 16.09.1997 executed by Ch. Kameswara Rao in favour of K. Praveen Kumar (defendant). The material on record shows that the defendant, having executed Ex.A1, kept Ex.A4 title deed with the plaintiff firm as a security for the loan amount. The defendant has not explained how his title deed, i.e., Ex.A4 came into the custody of the plaintiff firm when he had no transaction with the firm. It can be taken as one of the strong circumstances to accept the plaintiff's case.
22. In the present case, the presumption has not been rebutted by the defendant, even by the preponderance of probabilities.
23. On studied scrutiny, it is seen that the defendant has not produced any evidence to discharge the onus on them. The defence taken by the defendant is not substantiated. The presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 is a statutory one, and unless it is rebutted, it has to be presumed that consideration has passed.
24. The upshot of the discussion mentioned above is that the plaintiff is able to establish the execution of the suit //10// TMR,J AS.No.697 of 2007 promissory note in her favour by the defendant after receipt of the consideration amount as referred in Ex.A1 promissory note.
25. The defendant contends that he was a minor as on the date of the suit promissory note transaction. He relied on Ex.B1 - Secondary School Certificate, which shows the date of birth, Ex.B2 - Driving license, Ex.B3 Community, nativity and date of birth certificate of the defendant. As per Ex.B1 and B3, the defendant's date of birth was shown as 06.10.1981. Ex.A1 Suit transaction took place on 16.07.1999. Ex.A4 transaction is said to have taken place on 16.09.1997. The sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant without referring to him as a minor. It implies that he was not a minor even by the date of Ex.A4. Otherwise, it could have certainly been reflected in the sale deed. In this regard, the Trial Court observed that "the recitals of Ex.A4 sale deed clearly show that the defendant has purchased the flat thereunder, in the first premises of Ex.A4 the age of the defendant was not referred and he was shown as major not being represented by his father or mother being minor on the date of Ex.A4 transaction dated 16.09.1997; it means the DW.1 being a major had purchased the property covered thereunder". The Trial Court has given said reasoning based on the facts.
//11// TMR,J AS.No.697 of 2007
26. In Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit5 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the date of birth mentioned in the scholars' register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. The entry contained in the admission form or in the scholar register must be shown to be made on the basis of information given by the parents or a person having special knowledge about the date of birth of the person concerned. If the entry in the scholar's register regarding date of birth is made on the basis of information given by parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such an entry will have no evidentiary value. Merely because the documents relating to the date of birth were proved, it does not mean that the contents of document were also proved. Mere proof of the documents would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the correctness of date of birth stated in the documents".
27. In Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.6 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referring to the Judgment of Birad Mal Singhvi, held that "Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down that an entry in any public or other official book, register, record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty especially enjoined by the Law of the country is itself a relevant fact. It is trite that to render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions have to be satisfied, namely: (i) entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record; (ii) it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact, and (iii) it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, or in performance of his duty especially enjoined by Law. An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act but the entry regarding the age of a person in a school register is of not 5 1988 AIR(SC) 1796 6 2009 AIR(SC) 314 //12// TMR,J AS.No.697 of 2007 much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded".
28. It is common knowledge that based on the entries made in the school register, the date of birth will be noted in the corresponding certificates issued by the concerned authorities. The defendant has not examined any witnesses in proof of his age. He has failed to explain why in Ex.A4 sale deed, he was not being referred to as a minor, and Ex.A4 sale deed came to be executed in his favour. In the case facts, the Trial Court has come to the correct conclusion in not accepting the defendant's contention.
29. The other contention raised by the defendant is that he belongs to Schedule Tribe, and as per the A.P. Schedule Tribe Debt Regulation, 1970, all loans granted to Schedule Tribe People as null and void. The reading of 2 of said Regulation shows that it extends to all Schedule Areas in Andhra Pradesh.
30. The Fifth Schedule under Article 244 (1) of the Constitution defines "Schedule Areas", as such areas as the President may by order declare to be Scheduled Areas after consultation with the Governor of that State.
31. As per the plaint, the defendant resides in Flat No.1, D.No.1- 2-215/E, Gagan Mahal, Dumalguda, Hyderabad. As per the //13// TMR,J AS.No.697 of 2007 contents of the Ex.A1 promissory note, the defendant is a resident of Plot No.29, Saudamini Apartments, Laevsons Baby Colony, Visakhapatnam. The burden is on the defendant to establish that he is a resident of the Scheduled Area to claim benefit. The defendant's address particulars as shown in the plaint and in Ex.A1 shows he is a resident of Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam. Thus, the defendant has not placed any material to show that he was a resident of the Scheduled Area as referred to in Fifth Schedule on the Suit transaction date. As such, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention.
32. As seen from the plaint, interest is calculated at 36% per annum. Admittedly, the plaintiff firm is a Financial Company which deals with finance business by lending money.
33. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on a decision M/s.Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. M/s.Sugesan and Co.(P) Ltd., Madras7, wherein interest is awarded at 24% per annum up to the date of the suit in a 7 AIR 1999 MADRAS 49 //14// TMR,J AS.No.697 of 2007 commercial transaction. Though the defendant had agreed to pay interest at 36% per annum, this Court views the interest claimed by the plaintiff as usurious. Considering the facts of the case, this Court views that the interest rate shall be calculated up to the date of the suit at 24% per annum. This Court views that Section 34 of the CPC leaves it to the discretion of the Court as to what interest is to be decreed by way of pendenti lite interest. The Trial Court, at its discretion, awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. The plaintiff has not challenged such a rate of interest. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the interest rate as awarded by the Trial Court from the date of the suit.
34. Given the preceding discussion, this Court views that the Trial Court finding regarding the execution of the promissory note by the defendant on receipt of the consideration amount is to be confirmed. However, the Trial Court finding with regard to allowing the claim of the plaintiff to grant interest at 36% per annum instead of awarding 24% per annum is liable to be set aside.
35. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs. The Decree and Judgment of the Trial Court are //15// TMR,J AS.No.697 of 2007 modified by holding that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to the decree for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from the defendant with interest at 24% per annum from the date of the suit transaction till the date of filing of such suit and thereafter at the rate of interest as awarded by the Trial Court with proportionate costs in the suit.
36. In the plaint, the payments made by the defendant were deducted by calculating the interest rate at 36% per annum; such calculations shall be made as per the interest rate awarded by this Court. On the amounts deposited by the defendant, if any, before the Trial Court, the appellant- defendant shall be liable to pay interest only up to the date of deposit. In case the amount in the deposit is invested in any nationalized bank, the interest earned on that amount, to the extent the plaintiff was entitled, shall be paid to it. Payment, if any, made already shall be adjusted towards the decree that may be drawn pursuant to this Judgment.
37. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
___________________________ T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Dt.17.04.2023.
KGM //16// TMR,J AS.No.697 of 2007 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.697 OF 2007 Dated 17.04.2023 KGM