The court upheld the validity of the suit promissory note and found that the evidence on record proved the defendant's liability to repay the borrowed amount, leading to the decree in favor of the plaintiff.

Headnote:
Promissory Note - Recovery Suit - Negotiable Instruments Act - [Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act] - The court decreed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,76,000/- with interest at 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,76,000/- based on a promissory note dated 08.12.2012 against the defendant. The defendant denied borrowing the amount and claimed to have borrowed from another party.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence on record proved that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a suit promissory note. The court appreciated the evidence and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: (1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid, forged and binding on the defendant? (2) Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for? (4) To what relief?
Ratio Decidendi: The evidence on record proved that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a suit promissory note. The court found no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge.
Final Decision: The appeal suit was dismissed with costs, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge.

JUDGMENT

A.V Ravindra Babu, J. - Challenge in this appeal suit is to the judgment, dated 28.04.2017 in O.S.No.1263 of 2015, on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada ('Additional Senior Civil Judge' for short), whereunder the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, in a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,76,000/- basing on the promissory note, dated 08.12.2012 against the defendant, decreed the same for a sum of Rs.13,76,000/- with interest at 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and with subsequent interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

2. The parties to this Appeal Suit will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, according to the averments in the plaint is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- on 08.12.2012 from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day, agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. On repeated demands made by the plaintiff to repay the promissory note debt, the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.377251, dated 02.07.2014 of Canara Bank, Venkateswarapuram Branch, Vijayawada, for Rs.10,00,000/-towards part payment of the promissory note debt by stating that he has sufficient funds in the bank account and requested the plaintiff to present it. Believing the representation made by the defendant, the plaintiff presented the cheque on 02.07.2014 in State Bank of India, Labbipet, Vijayawada and it was returned as 'funds are insufficient'. The plaintiff communicated to the defendant about the factum of dishonour. The defendant rendered himself liable for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In response to the dishonour of cheque, on 28.07.2014, the plaintiff got issued a statutory notice demanding the defendant to call upon him to repay the cheque amount and the defendant having received the notice, issued a reply, dated 12.08.2014 with false allegations. As the defendant did not choose to comply the demand, the plaintiff filed C.C.No.1071 of 2014 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, which is pending. The present suit is filed basing on the promissory note for recovery of the amount. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendant got filed a written statement denying the case of the plaintiff and the contention of the defendant, in brief, is that he borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from one Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao on 13.08.2010 by registering a mortgage deed in favour of him. The document was registered as Document No.4682 of 2010, on the file of Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada. At the time of borrowal, Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao took one blank signed promissory note and one blank signed cheque bearing No.377251, drawn on Canara Bank, Venkateswarapuram, Vijayawada. Subsequently, on 09.06.2013, the defendant paid the entire mortgage debt with interest to Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao. Even after receipt of the amount, Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao has not come forward to cancel the mortgage deed executed in his favour by the defendant. But, Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao filed mortgage suit, O.S.No.63 of 2013, on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, for which the defendant filed his written statement and it is coming for trial. He never borrowed Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff. He never issued any cheque towards part payment of the alleged debt. Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao with a malafide intention fabricated blank signed promissory note and filed the suit through the plaintiff with false allegations. The defendant does not have any acquaintance with the plaintiff. He did not r