Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J
1. Defendant before the trial court is the appellant herein. Plaintiff in the suit is the respondent herein.
2. Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Venkata Ranga Das, Kanuri, learned counsel for respondent submitted arguments.
3. OS.No.591 of 2010 before learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada was filed by plaintiff. He alleged that the defendant borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- cash from him on 09.11.2007 and executed a demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same with 24% interest per annum as and when demanded. Despite demands and notice dated 15.04.2010 defendant did not pay and therefore plaintiff sued him for recovery of Rs.5,53,000/- comprising the principal and interest accrued till then. Defendant filed his written statement wherein he denied the case set up by the plaintiff and narrated his own version of the case. Suit went for trial. Learned trial court settled the following issues for trial:
Issues: -
1. Whether suit pro-note is true, valid and supported by consideration?
2. Whether the suit pro-note was fabricated by A.B.Koteswara Rao?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount from the defendant?
4. Plaintiff testified as PW.1 and the scribe of the promissory note testified as PW.2 and the attestor of the promissory note testified as PW.3. The disputed pro-note is Ex.A1. The office copy of demand legal notice issued by plaintiff to the defendant is Ex.A2 and it was received by the defendant on 17.04.2010 as evidenced by Ex.A3/postal acknowledgment. Defendant testified as DW.1 and he got examined Sri A.B.Koteswara Rao as one of his witnesses in defence ad DW.2.
5. After considering the entire evidence on record and the submissions made by learned counsel for plaintiff and after noting that no arguments were submitted by defendants, learned trial court analysed the entire evidence and recorded definite findings to the affect that the version pleaded and spoken to by the plaintiff and supported by PWs.2 and 3 were true and the versions spoken by defendant were inconsistent. It recorded that defendant borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- from plaintiff and executed Ex.A1/promissory note. The theory of fabrication and forgery of pro-note was negatived. Learned trial court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and passed judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the following terms:
“In the result, suit is decreed with costs. Plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,53,000/- from defendant with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till realization on principal amount of Rs.3,50,000/.”
6. Aggrieved by that, this present appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC is filed by the defendant. Leaned counsel appellant/defendant contends that the learned trial court failed to read the evidence properly and that the appellant/defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/- and the evidence indicated that the suit pro-note was a fabricated document. For these reasons, learned counsel for appellant/defendant prays to set aside the impugned judgment.
7. As against it, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submits that as against the consistent evidence of PW.1 to 3 inconsistent versions of defendant were properly analysed by the learned trial court and appropriate presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was drawn by the learned trial court and only to protract the proceedings defendant is prolonging the litigation without any merits. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff seeks dismissal of appeal.
8. The points that fall for consideration are:
1. Had the appellant/defendant not borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- and had he not executed Ex.A1/promissory note in favour of respondent/plaintiff?
2. Whether the learned trial court failed to consider the evidence properly and reached to incorrect conclusions requiring interference?
POINTS: -
From the record and from the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides, the following facts are not in dispute:
Defendant/appellant is a graduate and plaintiff/ respondent is an agriculturist and also does finance business. They are known to each other for a long time. Ex.A1 is the promissory note dated 09.11.2007 for Rs.3,50,000/- . According to PW.1,2 and 3, defendant borrowed that money and executed that promissory note. Earlier to the institution of the suit mentioning the debt transaction and execution of pro-note plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 notice and the defendant received it as per Ex.A3/postal acknowledgment and defendant did not issue any reply notice. On the above evidence one could reasonably reach to a conclusion that defendant borrowed Rs.3,50,000/-from the plaintiff and failed to repay the same despite valid demands for repayment. That must entitle the plaintiff to decree in his favour.
9. In the written statement and in his evidence, defendant stated that through DW.2/Sri A.B.Koteswara Rao, he borrowed Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff in the year 2006 and repaid the same along with overdue interest. Be it noted Ex.A1 mentioned transaction is of the year 2007 and defendant was speaking about the transaction that took place in the year 2006. Therefore, there is no relevance in his contention.
10. Further contention of the defendant/appellant is that while borrowing that Rs.50,000/- blank promissory notes and his title deeds and blank cheques were obtained by plaintiff from him. No one could understand as to why one would ask totally blank papers even without signatures of the person giving them. Thus defendant raised a contention that had no worth at all.
11. In the written statement defendant contended that Ex.A1/promissory note does not contain his signature. However, during the course of trial he stated that promissory note contains his signature and in fact this was one pro-note the plaintiff had earlier obtained as a blank document. Thus, there is change in his version. Be that as it may. Defendant did not produce his contemporaneous writings and signatures and did not take steps to have opinion of any expert either about the age of the ink or about any manipulations in the document. He did not choose to issue reply notice explaining his version of the case. He said about giving a complaint to police but he never exhibited any document in support of it. There was no enmity between defendant on one hand and PWs.2 and 3 on the other hand. No plausible cause could be seen for PW.2 and 3 to speak anything false as against the innocent defendant. Considering all these facts and circumstances, learned trial court rightly disbelieved the version of defendant. It is curious to note that reading of the written statement indicates Sri A.B.Koteswara Rao is the one who is instrumental in getting a fabricated pro-note enabling the plaintiff to file the suit. However, at the trial defendant himself examined that Mr.A.B.Koteswara Rao. Thus, defendant was only using one of his friends to support his false theories. Learned trial court rightly analyzed all the facts and circumstances and rightly arrived at proper conclusions.
12. This court finds no merit in any of the grounds urged here for the defendant/appellant. Points are answered against the appellant.
13. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. As a consequence, the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.12.2011 of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Vijayawada in O.S.No.591 of 2010 stands confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Defendant shall forthwith discharge his decretal debt.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
