IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof in establishing discharge and the importance of credible evidence in supporting a plea of discharge.

JUDGMENT

1. The Appeal, under Sec. 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the appellant/defendant challenging the decree and Judgment dtd. 16/7/2009 in O.S.No.81 of 2006 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore (for short, 'trial court'). Respondent is the plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.No.81 of 2006 seeking recovery of Rs.4, 30, 000.00 with interest and costs from the defendant based on the promissory note.

2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the present Appeal, in a nutshell, are as under: The defendant borrowed Rs.2, 50, 000.00 from the plaintiff on 15/2/2003 and executed the suit promissory note in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 36 % per annum. Despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the said amount. The defendant is not an agriculturist; he is not entitled to the benefits under the Agriculture Debt Relief Acts and the Usurious Loan Act. Hence, the plaintiff claimed the interest at 24% per annum.

4. In the written statement, the defendant refuted the plaint averments and admitted the borrowing amount from the plaintiff and affirmed the execution of a suit promissory note and asserted that at the time of execution of the suit promissory note, no witnesses had affixed their signatures to the document; the signatures of attestors were subsequently appended; the claiming of interest at 36% per annum is unjust and the plaintiff is not entitled to the same. It is submitted that unforeseen financial setbacks had led to losses to his business rendering it impossible to repay the debt; a mediation by D.Udayabhaskar Reddy and Chitti Babu was held, in their presence, the defendant transferred ownership of an Ambassador Car bearing registration No.AP26-E-4555 (hereinafter be referred to as 'the car') to the plaintiff as a settlement towards the outstanding debt stipulated in the promissory note; the defendant asserted that the plaintiff after taking possession of the aforementioned vehicle, informed the defendant that the promissory note had been misplaced and if traced, it would be returned; relying on this assurance, the defendant remained passive believing the matter to be settled; the plaintiff motivated by dishonesty, had initiated legal proceedings as if no payment had been made; the plaintiff, having acquired the possession of the car in question, had received the entire amount due, thus, the suit debt is discharged; the plaintiff had deliberately concealed the pertinent facts and filed a baseless suit.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the entire suit amount?

(2) To what relief?

6. During the trial, on the plaintiff's behalf, he was examined as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A1. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.7.

7. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs against the defendant for Rs.4, 30, 000.00, with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of suit, till the date of decree on principal amount of Rs.2, 50, 000.00, and with future interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization.

8. Sri Rama Chandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel representing the appellant/defendant, contends that a careful examination of Exs.B.1 to B.4 documents would unequivocally revealed that the car, registered in the name of Sudheer Reddy and belonging to the appellant, shows that mediation and discharge pleaded by the appellant is correct; as the documents relating to the car were in bank by that time and as pronote was not given back and the documents pertaining to the car were not given; the trial Court failed to notice the absence of any substantial inconsistencies in the testimonies of the defence witnesses; there were no justifiable reasons to discredit their evidence concerning