A. GOPAL REDDY, J.

( 1 ) APPELLANT, who is the defendant, filed this appeal against the judgment and decreed passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil judge, Rajahmundry, in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in which is filed o. S. No. 127 of 1988 dated 14. 3. 2000,/for recovery of a sum of rs. 44,773. 40 ps, being the amount due on a promissory note executed by the appellant-defendant herein. For the sake of convenience and proper understanding, the parties are referred to as arrayed before the court below.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that the defendant was working in the plaintiffs Transport Company as a Clerk, a branch of which was situated at Rajahmundry, from the year 1973 onwards till 19. 8. 1985. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant worked as an in Accountant-cum-Cashier from the year 1983 in their branch at rajahmundry, and used to maintain the books of account and handle cash, which fact had been denied by the defendant. On 8. 7. 1985, PW-1-Territory Manager, called the defendant with the records for verification of the statement and questioned about the delay in sending the monthly statement to the head office. In this regard, PW-1 found that there was a shortage of cash balance of rs. 33. 060. 24 ps, and the defendant admitted to have been executed a promissory note for the said sum on the said date under Ex. A-7. After his acceptance and execution of the promissory note, the said amount was debited in Ex. A-5 account book in his. own handwriting, which was endorsed and checked by pw-1. Further, the defendant, in his own handwriting, gave a letter even date, admitting his liability for the above said misappropriated amount, which is marked under Ex. A-6 and executed the promissory note after such undertaking and also agreed to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum. Thereafter, the defendant attended to his duties and verified the records and subsequently resigned from the plaintiffs organization. When the defendant failed to repay the said amount, a notice was issued on 27. 5. 1988, to which the defendant gave reply under Ex. A-8 dated 11. 6. 1988, denying that he never maintained the books of account of the company, at any point of time, and stated that the accounts and cash were handled by the branch Manager and the Assistant Manager only, but not by any of the clerks in the branch. It is his further allegation that the officers of the plaintiffs branch at Rajahmundry, had misappropriated the organization s funds to a tune of rs. 33,060. 24 ps, and threw the blame on the defendant and accordingly he was falsely implicated in a criminal case. The defendant was forced to sign on the typed promissory note and other claim papers on 18. 8. 1985, for the said amount, by playing fraud, coercion, and influencing the defendant, and got obtained the promissory note. It is further contended that the said promissory note is void and unenforceable, as he never received any consideration in execution of the said promissory note.

( 3 ) AS the defendant could not repay the said misappropriated amount, the plaintiffs filed the above suit for recovery of the amount from him, covered under the promissory note. The defendant filed a written statement denying most of the allegations made against him. It is his case that he never worked as an Accountant and Cashier in the plaintiffs branch at rajahmundry. But in paragraph (3) of the written statement, it is stated that the execution of the promissory note on 8. 7. 1985 for rs. 33,060. 24 ps, by him, in favour of the 2nd plaintiff was not at all voluntary, but it was obtained without his free consent and that the promissory note was not supported by any consideration. In paragraph (4), it was specifically admitted that there was some misappropriation of amount in the 2nd plaintiff-company in the year 1985, and that the officers of the branch misappropriated the funds to the said extent and falsely implicated the defendant by lodging a criminal case against him

Click Here to Read the rest of this document