Back
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Polareddy Krishna Prasad Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Allareddy Venkata Subbareeddy Allamreddy Venkata Subbareddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This Second Appeal, under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C'), has been filed by the Appellant/Appellant/Defendant against the Decree and Judgment dated 03.11.2005, in A.S.No.26 of 2004 on the file of District Judge, Nellore (for short, ‘the 1st Appellate Court’) reversing the decree and Judgment dated 18.11.2003, in O.S.No.177 of 2001 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore (for short, ‘the trial Court’).
2. The Respondent/Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.177 of 2001 seeking recovery of Rs.1,42,500/- being the principal and interest from the Defendant based on the promissory note.
3. Referring to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit is practical to mitigate confusion and better comprehend the case.
4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:
This suit has been filed for the recovery of Rs.1,42,500/-, based on a promissory note executed by Defendant in favour of Plaintiff for Rs.75,000/- on 03.06.1998. The Defendant agreed to repay the amount with interest at 30% per annum. Despite several
The High Court, under Section 100 CPC, affirmed findings of lower courts, stating that the burden to prove debt discharge lies with the Defendant, which was not met.
The burden of proof lies with the Defendant to establish discharge of debt, and the absence of clear evidence leads to dismissal of the appeal.
The court clarified the application of interest rates under CPC, emphasizing the need for reasonable rates based on the nature of the transaction.
The validity of a promissory note is upheld when supported by evidence of execution and consideration, and a second appeal requires substantial questions of law to be present.
The validity of a promissory note is upheld when the burden of proof for coercion and lack of consideration is not met by the Defendants.
The execution of a Promissory Note is sufficiently proved by witness testimony, and non-production of accounts is not fatal to the plaintiff's case.
The validity of a promissory note is established by the plaintiff's evidence of execution and consideration, while the defendant must prove claims of forgery or lack of consideration.
The presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act favors the holder of a promissory note, and the burden of proof lies on the Defendants to demonstrate the non-existence of consider....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
