JUDGMENT :

B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.

1. All these three appeals are preferred against the decrees and judgments, dated 20.10.2011, passed in O.S. No. 134 of 2006, O.S. No. 155 of 2007 and O.S. No. 135 of 2006 respectively on the file of the Court of the VI Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Narsapur, West Godavari District.

2. At the outset, the pleadings of the parties in each appeal are stated hereunder.

3...........

(a) The plaint averments in O.S. No. 134 of 2006, in brief, are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the plaintiff on 18.05.1994 for his family necessities and to discharge sundry debts and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 36% per annum with yearly compoundable rests. Thereafter, on demand, the defendant made part payments on three occasions and made endorsements on the reverse page of the promissory note. When the defendant failed to discharge the entire debt, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dated 27.04.2006. Having received the notice, the defendant kept quite. The defendant is not an agriculturist and he is a businessman and the provisions of Act 7 of 1977 are not applicable to him. Hence the suit.

(b) The averments in the written statement, in brief, are that the brother-in-law of defendant, Sirigineedi Venkateswara Rao, borrowed Rs. 15,000/- from the plaintiff on 18.05.1994 for his agricultural investment agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% and at that time, the plaintiff demanded the defendant and the said Venkateswara Rao to put their signatures jointly and separately on blank pronotes on which revenue stamps were affixed, as collateral security and accordingly, they put their signatures on blank promissory notes. S. Venkateswara Rao sold his land and discharged his debts paying Rs. 20,000/- with subsequent interest in the presence of elders on 10.05.2001. However, the promissory notes were not returned on the ground that they were not traced out. The defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and he never executed the suit promissory note nor made any endorsements on the promissory note making part payments. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

(c) On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

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

2. Whether the defendant is entitled to benefit of Act IV of 1938?

3. Whether acknowledgment of debts dated 16.05.1997, 15.05.2000 and 14.05.2003 are true, valid and binding on defendant?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim as prayed for?

5. To what relief?

(d) During the course of trial, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. DWs. 1 to 4 were examined and exhibits B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the defendant.

(e) After hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs for Rs. 24,534.37 paise with subsequent interest at 5½ % from the date of the suit till realization on the principal amount of Rs. 15,000/- against the defendant and the rest of the suit claim was dismissed.

4...........

(a) The plaint averments, in O.S. No. 155 of 2007, in brief, are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the plaintiff on 21.02.1995 for his family necessities and to discharge sundry debts and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum with yearly compoundable rests. Thereafter, on demand, the defendant made part payments on four occasions and made endorsements on the reverse page of the promissory note. When the defendant failed to discharge the entire debt, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dated 27.04.2006. Having received the notice, the defendant kept quite. The defendant is not an agriculturist and he is a businessman and the provisions of Act 7 of 1977 are not applicable to him. Hence the suit.

(b) Th