The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to reduce an unconscionable and usurious interest rate, based on legal precedents, prevailing market conditions, and the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Andhra Pradesh Money Lenders Act, and Indian Contract Act.

JUDGMENT

1. The appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.173 of 2005 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kurnool. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit.

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

3. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows: On 10/5/2002, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 and agreed to repay with future interest at 24% per annum and executed the suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, in spite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the debt. On 16/4/2005, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice and the same was received by the defendant. The defendant failed to repay the debt nor give a reply. The defendant is not an agriculturist and therefore claimed the agreed rate of interest. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendant filed a written statement contending that he approached the plaintiff on 8/5/2002 for a loan of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 for his partnership business. The plaintiff agreed to lend money at 24% per annum. On 10/5/2002, the plaintiff wanted him to give a D.P. Note for Rs.3, 00, 000.00 and after scribing the pronote, he paid cash of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 and informed him that he would pay balance of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 within a week. After one week, when he approached the plaintiff, he did not pay the balance consideration of Rs.1, 00, 000.00. He paid interest regularly for Rs.2, 00, 000.00 up to the month of December, 2002. Further on 15/1/2003, he paid Rs.1, 00, 000.00 towards principal amount of Rs.2, 00, 000.00. Therefore, he is due principal amount of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 and interest on the said amount from January, 2003. The defendant belongs to agricultural family. Further, there was no attestor present and attested on the suit pronote. Subsequently, the plaintiff obtained the signature of attestor on the suit pronote.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial Court:

(1) Whether the suit pronote dtd. 10/5/2002 is partly not supported by consideration to extent of one lakh as pleaded by the defendant for ?

(2) Whether discharge-in-part of the suit pronote amount as pleaded by the defendant is true and correct ? (3) Whether the defendant is an agriculturist and that the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff is to be scaled down ? (4) Whether the signatures of the attestors on the suit pronote were obtained subsequent to the date of execution of the suit proote by the defendant and if so what is the effect of it ? and

(5) To what relief ?

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Ex.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-5.

7. After completion of trial and hearing arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs for Rs.5, 04, 000.00 with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.

8. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendant filed the present appeal questioning the finding given by the trial Court.

9. Heard Sri B.S. Venkata Ramesh, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and Sri V.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

10. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and came to wrong conclusion and decreed the suit. He would further contend that the trial Court ordered interest of 24% per annum from the date of suit pronote till the date of filing of the suit, the same has to be scaled down and he would further contend that the appellant is an agriculturist, therefore the interest has to be scaled down to 12% per annum.

11. Now, the points for determination are:

(1) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? and (2) To what extent ?

12. Point No.1: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the