In promissory note disputes, execution and consideration must be evidenced; failure to rebut presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act affirms the validity of the notes. Upholds lower court findings without substantial questions of law on appeal.

Judgment :

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 22-01-2024 in A.S.No.153 of 2019 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Guntur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20-4-2019 in O.S.No.583 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.583 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.583 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, with a prayer for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,14,600/- on the basis of two promissory notes dated 10-9-2014 each for Rs.1,50,000/- and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, decreed the suit with costs for a sum of Rs.5,14,600/- together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal suit before the first appellate Court. The learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant/appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.583 of 2017, is as follows:

It is pleaded that the defendant having borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- each under two promissory notes from him on 10-9-2014 executed two promissory notes on the same day agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% per annum either to him or his order on demand and subsequently he demanded the defendant for several times both personally and through mediators to discharge the debt due under two promissory notes along with interest, but the defendant postponed and protracting the same on one pretext or the other. Finally, the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.391877 for Rs.1,50,000/- on 22-02-2016 and again he issued another cheque bearing No.391876 for Rs.1,50,000/- on 23-02-2016 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Auto Nagar Branch, Guntur, respectively, towards part payment of the debt covered under two promissory notes and that those cheques were dishonoured on the ground that ‘account closed’ and thereafter, he got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 07-3-2014 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requesting him to make payment of cheques’ amount within 15 days after receiving the notice. The defendant after receiving notice, did not pay the amount, but gave reply notice with false allegations. Therefore, the plaintiff filed criminal complaint against the defendant on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Guntur, vide C.C.No.242 of 2016 and on 01-9-2017, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Hence, he constrained to file the suit for recovery of debt covered under suit promissory notes.

7. The defendant filed written statement denying the contents of plaint averments and further contended as follows:

(a) It is contended that on 10-6-2019 his mother by name Shaik Habibunnisa, wife of Shaik Khajamuddin, had borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff for her urgent necessities and that due to instigation of the p