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.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellants / Appellants / Defendants against the Decree and Judgment dated 09.06.2003, in A.S.No.75 of 1998 on the file of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam (for short, ‘the First Appellate Court’) confirming the decree and Judgment dated 20.04.1998, in O.S.No.108 of 1993 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam (for short, ‘the Trial Court’).

2. The Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.108 of 1993 seeking recovery of Rs.39,670.72 ps., being the principal and interest from the Defendants based on the promissory note, dated 20.06.1991.

3. Referring to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit is expedient 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:

On 20.06.1991, Defendants 1 and 2 borrowed Rs.30,200/-, agreeing to pay with 14 % annual interest, and executed a promissory note infavour of the Plaintiff. On 19.07.1993, the Plaintiff sent a registered notice to the Defendants demanding payment. The Defendants acknowledged receipt of the notice, but the 1^st Defendant responded on 03.08.1993 with false claims. Despite this, the Defendants have failed to repay the amount due on the promissory note.

5. The 1^st Defendant filed a written statement adopted by the 2^nd Defendant, wherein, contended that the 2^nd Defendant did not sign the alleged promissory note, claiming her signature is forged. The promissory note is, therefore, invalid. The 1^st Defendant acknowledges borrowing Rs.6000/- from Plaintiff in 1979, with interest paid until 1983. However, the 1^st Defendant could not pay interest from 1984 to 1986 due to financial difficulties. The 1^st Defendant alleges that under threat and coercion, he was forced to sign the suit promissory note while confined in the Plaintiff’s father-in-law’s house. The amount of Rs.30,200/- stated in the promissory note was not supported by any legitimate monetary consideration. Furthermore, the 1^st Defendant claims that a written endorsement, issued by the Plaintiff in the presence of elders on 22.06.1991, acknowledged that the actual accrued amount due was Rs.20,000/-, not Rs.30,200/-. The 1^st Defendant also asserts that he made Rs.2,400/- payments on 10.08.1991, Rs.8,000/- on 05.01.1992 and Rs.6,000/- on 10.03.1992, for which the Plaintiff provided unstamped receipts. These payments, totalling Rs.16,400/-, have not been deducted from the alleged amount of Rs.30,200/-, and the Plaintiff has suppressed these facts in the suit. Consequently, the 1^st Defendant contends that he owes only Rs.3,600/-and requests the dismissal of the suit with costs.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and supported by consideration?

2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to suit claim?

3) To what relief?

7. During the trial, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 on behalf of the Plaintiff. Conversely, on behalf of the Defendants, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.6.

8. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the Trial Court decreed the suit with costs in O.S.No.108 of 1993 for Rs.39,670.72 ps., and subsequent interest at 14 2/5 % per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.30,200/-.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the Defendants filed an Appeal in A.S.No.75 of 1998 on file of the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, being the final fact-finding Court, framed the following points for consideration:

1) Whether the 2^nd Appellant / 2^nd Defendant also signed Ex.A.1?

2) Whether the suit pronote was obtained under coercion and is devoid of consideration to a tune of Rs.10,200/-?

3)