( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal, by the plaintiff, arises out of a suit for a declaration that the agreement chitti and charainama , executed by him in favour of the first defendant, are not enforceable and not supported by consideration, inasmuch as they were got executed under coercion and undue influence. There was also a further relief sought for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from enforcing the said charainama Exhibit D-1. The chitti , Exhibit D-2, which was issued by the Police Patel, Balreddy, examined as D. W. 3 showed that the plaintiff had sold ten bullocks to the first defendant. So, the two main issues in the suit were- 1. Whether the chitti and charainama dated 10th October, 1954, are vitiated by undue influence and coercion ; and 2. Whether the second defendant is a money lender within the meaning of section 2 (7) of the Hyderabad Money Lenders Act and was not in possession of a licence and consequently the second defendant has no right to claim the amount due from the plaintiff ? If so, what is it effect on the suit transaction ? the facts found by the lower appellate Court are that the plaintiff was having money dealings with the seco

Click Here to Read the rest of this document