Mall Appalaraju v. S Satyanarayna

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY SECOND APPEAL NO.39 OF 2018 DATED:09-02-2018 Between:

Mall Appalaraju ... Appellant And Saragadam Satyanarayana ... Respondent COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. N. Vijay COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: - THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT:

This second appeal arises out of concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below in O.S. No.111 of 2015 and A.S. No.15 of 2016.

2.

The respondent - plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of Rs.62,133/- along with interest at 24% per annum on the strength of a promissory note. The appellant - defendant has taken the plea that he has executed certain promissory notes in the years 2010 and 2011 in favour of the respondent and one Rapeti Srinivasa Rao and that the said promissory notes were time barred. That the appellant got issued a notice dt.1.5.2015 to the respondent for return of the original documents relating to his house, which were taken forcibly on 27.04.2015 from the wife of the appellant. The appellant further pleaded that due to ill-health of his wife, he stopped the bangles business in the month of April 2012 onwards and finally it was closed in the month of January, 2013 and therefore he had no necessity to borrow amount for his business investment. He has accordingly denied borrowing of any amount from the respondent and the execution of the suit promissory note.

3.

Based on the respective pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues.

1. "Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount together with subsequent interest and costs from the defendant?

3. To what relief?"

4.

On behalf of the respondent, he examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2. He has got Exs.A.1 to A.3 marked. On behalf of the appellant, he examined himself as D.W.1 and got Exs.B.1 toB.6 marked.

5.

On issue No.1, the trial Court has placed the initial burden on the respondent to adduce cogent and convincing evidence. Based on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also Exs.A.1 to A.3, the trial Court has rendered a finding that the respondent has discharged the initial burden placed on him to the effect that the appellant has borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- under Ex.A.1 agreeing to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and that he failed to discharge the same. The trial Court further held that the appellant failed to produce any evidence in support of his plea that Ex.A.1 promissory note is forged and that no consideration was passed under the same. The trial Court also held that on getting himself recalled as D.W.1, the appellant has produced Exs.B.1

to B.6 and introduced a new story that he used to sign as "M.A. Raju", but not "Malla Appalaraju" in Telugu. The Trial Court has observed that the said stand is a pure afterthought as nowhere either in the written statement or in his chief examination as D.W.1 he has taken the said plea. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has arrived at the aforementioned conclusions while decreeing the suit. The lower appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by assigning cogent reasons.

6.

After hearing Mr. N. Vijay, learned counsel for the appellant, and carefully considering the findings recorded by the Courts below, I do not find that the judgments under appeal suffer from any legal errors giving rise to substantial questions of law. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the second appeal, I.A. No.1 of 2018 shall stand disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09-02-2018 bnr