JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 04.12.2023 in A.S.No.124 of 2018, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Kadapa-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 14.09.2018 in O.S.No.173 of 2015, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa (“Trial Court” for short).

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.173 of 2015, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.173 of 2015, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, with a prayer for recovery of Rs.2,08,089/- being the principal and interest due on promissory notes, dated 03.05.2012 and 12.09.2012 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.65,000/- and Rs.60,000/- respectively payable with interest at 24% per annum each, for future interest and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.124 of 2018, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Kadapa-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. The First Appellate Court, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the 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.173 of 2015, is as follows:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.65,000/- from the plaintiff on 03.05.2012 for his family necessities and had executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day in the house of the plaintiff. The defendant also agreed to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum on demand of the plaintiff or on his order. Again the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff on 12.09.2012 for his family necessities and had executed another suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day in the house of the plaintiff. The defendant also agreed to repay the said amount with interest at 24% per annum on demand of the plaintiff or on his order. One Chinna Obaiahgari Adi Lakshumma was present and witnessed both the pronote transactions. The plaintiff personally demanded the defendant to pay the amounts due under two promissory notes and in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the amount and dragging on the matter on some pretext or other. Finally, on 03.02.2015 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant demanding to pay the amounts due under two promissory notes and the defendant received the said notice and gave a reply on 10.02.2015 with false allegations.

7. The defendant filed a written statement before the trial Court denying the averments in the plaint. The brief averments in the written statement of defendant are as follows:

The plaintiff has been managing joint family affairs. He had not properly partitioned the joint family properties. The father-in-law of the defendant by name Kambam Narayana Reddy, who is one of the brothers of the plaintiff, is a gentle man and having steadiness nature. On several times, the father-in-law of the defendant requested the plaintiff to partition the remaining properties. The defendant requested the plaintiff to partition the remaining properties and cause justice to his father-in-law, but the plaintiff vehemently rejected their request and behaved indecently with the defendant and his wife and in that occasion, there was an altercation between the plaintiff and defendan