The court affirmed the validity of a promissory note and clarified the burden of proof regarding consideration, modifying the interest awarded.

JUDGMENT :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short "the C.P.C."], is filed by the Appellant challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 08.05.2006 in O.S. No. 84 of 2005 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole [for short "the trial Court"].

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 84 of 2005.

3. The respondent /plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of suit amount with costs and future interest as agreed on the foot of the suit promissory note, dated 11.08.2003.

4. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

5. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No. 84 of 2005, are as under:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,15,000/- from him on 11.08.2003 for his business purpose by executing suit promissory note on the even date in evidence of the suit transaction agreeing to pay the promissory note amount with interest as and when demanded by him. In spite of personal reminders and also through the mediators, the defendant did not choose to repay the suit promissory note amount and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

6. The defendant filed a written statement by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -

The defendant did not borrow Rs. 6,15,000/- on 11.08.2003 by executing the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a practicing Advocate since several years. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend such a large sum to him. Both himself and the plaintiff are from the same village. The plaintiff is in the habit of taking promissory notes for exorbitant amounts as security for due payment of his fees as Advocate and return the same when the clients pay his fees. The plaintiff is in the habit of taking promissory notes for large sums either in his name or in the name of his close relatives. On one occasion when he was due Rs. 25,000/- in the name of his daughter. When he sent the fees through messenger, the plaintiff acknowledged the same stating that it was paid towards interest. When he protested, the plaintiff returned the promissory note. He further pleaded that as he is admitting his executing the suit promissory note, the burden is on the plaintiff in view of his fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff. He further pleaded that there were some other cases also in the Munsiff Courts. He paid the entire fees. But, the plaintiff did not pass receipts in evidence of receiving fees. He had no courage enough to ask for receipt from the plaintiff. As the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and as it was brought into existence in the circumstances referred above, the defendant pleads to dismiss the suit.

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

(1) Whether the suit promissory note was not supported by consideration and unenforceable as against the defendant?

(2) To what relief?

8. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.14 were marked. On behalf of the Defendant, DW1 was examined and Ex.B.1 to B.9 and Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.4 were marked.

9. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment, dated 08.05.2006, against which the present appeal is preferred by the defendant in the suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court.

10. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Narra, learned counsel for the appellant and heard Sri K.V. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the respondent.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the judgment and decree of the trial Court is contrary to law and he would further contend that the trial Court erred in decreeing the suit and the trial Court also erred in throwing the burden of proof on the defe