Back
1970 Supreme(AP) 84
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : PARTHASARATHI
Chapala Hanumaiah - Appellant
Versus
Kavuri Venkateswarlu - Respondent
Decided On : 03-27-70
In a revision petition under section 25 of the Provincial Small causes Courts Act, the question is whether the decision was made according to law, and a decision which is not rendered according to law can be corrected or set aside.
Headnote:
LIMITATION ACT, 1908 - SECTION 3 - PART-PAYMENT - PROOF - ENDORSEMENT ON PROMISSORY NOTE - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 3(2) - STANDARD OF PROOF - REJECTION OF PART OF WITNESS'S TESTIMONY - REVISION - PROVINCIAL SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, 1887 - SECTION 25 - SCOPE - FINDING OF FACT - INTERFERENCE IN REVISION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 1,275 lent on a promissory note dated 2nd September, 1961, with interest. The defendant denied the execution of the note and the endorsement of part-payment. The lower court upheld the plaintiff's case about the execution of the promissory note but negatived the plea of part-payment, disbelieving the story that the endorsement was made by the defendant. The suit was accordingly held to be barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the lower court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's story about the part-payment made on 31st August, 1964, and the endorsement Exhibit A-2 when it thought there was no reason to disbelieve in general the plaintiff's evidence. The court found that the lower court did not consider the effect of the notice of demand sent by the plaintiff, the defendant's silence when certain assertions of fact were made, and the copy of a plaint in another suit between the same lender and borrower, which referred to the debt due on the promissory note now in question. The court held that the finding of the lower court that the endorsement was not proved was not in accordance with law and could be set aside in revision.
Issues: 1. Whether the lower court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's story about the part-payment made on 31st August, 1964, and the endorsement Exhibit A-2 when it thought there was no reason to disbelieve in general the plaintiff's evidence? 2. Whether the lower court erred in not considering the effect of the notice of demand sent by the plaintiff, the defendant's silence when certain assertions of fact were made, and the copy of a plaint in another suit between the same lender and borrower, which referred to the debt due on the promissory note now in question?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A court is not bound to accept the testimony of a witness in its entirety, but when the court deems the evidence basically credit-worthy, and when there is no inherent flaw in the evidence in respect of the particular aspect in dispute, there should be a cogent reason for rejecting a vital party of the witnesses' testimony. 2. A fact is said to be proved when after considering the matters before it the court believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. 3. The omission of the lower court to consider the effect of the two documents Exhibits a-3 and A-4 as also the omission of the defendant to contradict certain statements of fact, establishes beyond doubt that it did not apply the proper criteria for deciding whether the fact in controversy was proved.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, the finding of the lower court that the endorsement was not proved was set aside, and the suit was decreed with costs, throughout.
( 2 ) HIS claim is for recovery of Rs. 1,275 lent on promissory note of 2nd September, 1961 with interest thereon. The plaintiff relies on a part-payment of Rs. 2, evidenced by the endorsement Exhibit a-2 made on the note on 31st August, 1964, to make out that the suit is in time. The defendant denied the execution of the note as also the endorsement.
( 3 ) THE lower Court upheld the plaintiff s case about the execution of the promissory note but negatived the plea of part-payment ; it disbelieved the story that the endorsement was made by the defendant. The suit was accordingly held to be barred by limitation.
( 4 ) THE plaintiff adduced the oral testimony of the scribe P. W. 2 and himself gave evidence as P. W. 1. The lower court accepted their version about the payment of consideration and the execution of the note.
( 5 ) THE Subordinate Judge held on the question of execution of Exhibit A- 1 that the plaintiff s omission to examine the attestors was immaterial. He was impressed by the testimony of the plaintiff and the scribe and in the evaluation of their evidence he found no reason to disbelieve" them. He discounted the evidentiary value of the defendant s unsupported denial of the execution of the note.
( 6 ) IT is difficult to appreciate the reasons that prompted the lower Court to reject the plaintiff s story about the part-payment made on 31st August, 1964 and the endorsement Exhibit A-2 when it thought there was no reason to disbelieve in general the plaintiff s evidence. The evidence of the defendant was considered unimpressive. What then was the rationale in rejecting the testimony of P. Ws. 1 and 2 about the endorsements of part-payment when their evidence was found to be credit-worthy ? Was there any inherent defect or vice in the evidence of the plaintiff and his witness which warranted the rejection of a part of their testimony when the lower Court found no reason to disbelieve their evidence.
( 7 ) THE lower Court itself opined that the absence of the testimony of an attestor did not detract from the plaintiff s version about the execution of the note. What then is the justification for applying a different standard in regard to the proof of Exhibit A-2 ?
( 8 ) THE view of the lower Court that exhibit A-2 is not proved is inconsistent with its own unreserved approbation on another aspect of the evidence of the plaintiff and the scribe. If their evidence was intrinsically sound, it was irrational and arbitrary to reject it in regard to exhibit A-2 especially when no flaw or inherent improbability in their evidence in respect of the part-payment was manifest.
( 9 ) IT is true a Court is not bound to accept the testimony of a witness in its entirety. But, when the Court deems the evidence basically credit-worthy, and when there is no inherent flaw in the evidence in respect of the particular aspect in dispute there should be a cogent reason for rejecting a vital party of the witnesses testimony.
( 10 ) THE conclusion arrived at by the lower Court indicates that it did not bear in mind the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Evidence Act. A fact is said to be proved when after considering the matters before it the Court believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. What are the matters which the Court had before it upon which the decision has to be taken ? The plaintiff sent a notice of demand under Exhibit A-4 on 25th february, 1966, which did not evoke a contradiction or denial of the defendant. In that notice, the plaintiff asserted that there was a part-payment of Rs. 2 made on 31st August, 1964. This assertion was very crucial f
