IMPORTANT POINT
The encashment of a negotiable instrument, coupled with evidence establishing a privity of contract, can prove a transaction, and the preponderance of probabilities is crucial in determining the outcome of a case.

JUDGMENT

1. Challenge in this Appeal Suit is to the judgment, dtd. 16/12/2016, in Original Suit No.280 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur (for short, 'the learned Senior Civil Judge'), where under the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.8, 58, 665.00 with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.5, 00, 000.00.

2. The parties to this Appeal Suit will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, according to the averments in the plaint is that, plaintiff and her husband are the family friends of the defendant since 10 years. Defendant is cordially related to the plaintiff's husband and his family members. Defendant's family members also have good acquaintance with the family of the plaintiff. In the month of March, 2009, the defendant requested the plaintiff and her husband to lend a sum of Rs.5, 00, 000.00 for the purpose of his business, agreeing to repay the same within two months with interest at 24% p.a. Plaintiff is having an account in ICICI Bank, Lakshmipuram, Guntur vide Account No.630701521932 with cheque book facility. She lent a sum of Rs.5, 00, 000.00 as hand loan to the defendant by way of cheque bearing No.518963, dtd. 6/3/2009, drawn on ICICI Bank, PMG Complex, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur through her Account bearing No.630701521932. She handed over the cheque to the defendant and the defendant encashed the same through his account. Plaintiff's bank statement clearly reveals that, on 7/3/2009, the defendant encashed the same but he did not choose to repay the same within the time. She demanded the defendant but the defendant postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice on 24/2/2012 to the defendant demanding him to repay the debt due under the above referred hand loan. The counsel for the plaintiff did not receive any postal acknowledgment or the returned notice. Hence, the Suit.

4. The defendant is bound to pay the interest as per the contract rate. He is not an agriculturist. The amount was taken from the plaintiff for his business purpose. Hence, the interest need not be scaled down.

5. The defendant got filed a written statement denying the case of the plaintiff and his contention, in brief, according to the written statement is that he has no intimacy or relationship with the plaintiff. The defendant is well established and highly educated by completing his graduation in Law and also practicised as Advocate at High Court, Hyderabad. After some time of carrying out in the profession, he intended to serve public and entered into the politics more than two decades ago. He developed his career in Telugu Desam Party and was elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly for two times and also worked as Minister for Technical Education. The true facts are that husband of the plaintiff is known to the defendant as the father-in-law of the defendant viz., K. Raghavaiah Chowdary and plaintiff carried out some business activities in construction of Apartments. Father-in-law of the defendant viz., K. Raghavaiah Chowdary passed away more than two years ago. As the plaintiff and her husband raised some apartments during the lifetime of father-in-law of the defendant, the defendant parted a hand loan to the plaintiff and towards the discharge of the said hand loan, plaintiff issued a cheque towards discharge of that liability. Taking advantage of the goodness of the defendant, plaintiff in a different version filed the suit as if he took the amount from the plaintiff. Without any proof of transaction, plaintiff cannot agitate against the defendant. Unless there is an instrument of contracting the debt, the plaintiff cannot succeed basing on the cheque. Hence, the Suit is to be dismissed.

6. On the basis