Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
J. Pradeep Kumar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Palle Subba Reddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
1. This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 16.04.2025, in A.S.No.87 of 2023, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 09.11.2023, in O.S.No.415 of 2018, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.415 of 2018.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.415 of 2018 on the file of the on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, with a prayer for recovery of Rs.10,53,200/- basing on two suit promissory notes dated 02.03.2017 & 07.07.2017 with subsequent interest and for costs.
4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, after conclusion of trial, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed the appeal in A.S.No.87 of 2023, before the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant
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 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.
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....
The presumption of consideration in promissory notes under the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, placing the burden on defendants to prove non-existence of consideration.
The court clarified the application of interest rates under CPC, emphasizing the need for reasonable rates based on the nature of the transaction.
The burden of proof shifts to the defendant when the court finds that the disputed signatures match the admitted signature. Failure to examine a key witness may not be fatal to the plaintiff's case.
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed unless proven perverse, emphasizing the finality of first appellate court's decisions.
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
