(Supreme Court)
Honble TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Honble H.S. BEDI, J.
Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao - Appellant
Versus
Thadikonda Ramulu Firm & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5597 of 2001
Decided On : May 16, 2008
ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881] /kkjk 118¼d½ & ijØkE; fy[kr ds ckjs esa mi/kkj.kk & dk izfrQy & ;g nkkZus dk vkjfEHkd Hkkj izfroknh ij gksrk gS fd izfrQy dk vfLrRo vuf/klaHkkO;] ;k lafnX/k ;k voS/k Fkk & vkjfEHkd dk fuoZgu djus gsrq izfrQy ls badkj djuk ek= gh i;kZIr ugha & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & izfrQy dh vfo|ekurk lkfcr djus gsrq vfHkys[k ij dqN vf/klaHkkO; ykuk gksxk & ;fn] fdlh dkj.k ok izfroknh vkjfEHkd Hkkj fuoZgu djus esa foQy jgrk gS rks oknh mi/kkj.kk dk ifjykHk ikus dk gdnkj gks tkrk gS & izR;FkhZ vkjafHkd Hkkj fuoZgu djus esa foQy jgkA ¼in la[;k 17 o 22½ vihy Lohdkj dhA
(2). The facts leading to the filing of this appeal as emerging from the case made out by the appellant in the plaint are as under.
The appellant is the son-in-law of respondent no.2. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of respondent no. 2 while respondent no. 1 is the firm belonging to respondent nos. 2 to 4 whose managing partner is respondent No.2. The appellant introduced one Pynda Ramakumar to the respondents who agreed to advance monies to the respondents on the understanding that the respondents would repay the amount while the appellant would execute pronotes as surety. The appellant accordingly executed certain pronotes whose consideration was received by the respondents. As regards repayment, the respondents were sending monies by drafts or otherwise in the name of one Narayan Murthy, who was the clerk of the appellant, by depositing the same in his account. The appellant would withdraw such amount deposited in the clerks account by encashing the TTs or Drafts which was then paid to Pynda Ramakumar who then got the endorsements signed by the appellant. This continued for some time but when the respondents failed to repay the balance amount due to Pynda Ramakumar, he pressurized the appellant for payment of the balance amount due to him.
(3). The appellant made several demands to the respondents for payment of the amounts due to Pynda Ramakumar but when the respondents could not pay the amounts, the respondent no. 2 as manager of the joint family and also on behalf of the respondent No. 1 firm executed two pronotes for sums of Rs. 2,15,000/- and Rs. 4,72,000/- being Ex.A-20 and Ex.A-21 respectively and a Khararnama in favour of the appellant whereby the respondent No. 1 agreed to repay amounts with interest at Rs. 2.50 ps. and Rs. 1.50 ps. respectively per annum. After execution of such pronotes, when, despite several demands, the respondents did not pay the amounts, a notice dated 3rd of October, 1986 was issued to them by the appellant stating that the pronotes and khararnama were executed by respondent no. 1 in favour of the appellant which may be discharged. The respondents vide letters dated 16th of October, 1986 and 20th of October, 1986 replied to the notice wherein they did not specifically deny the execution of the pronotes and the Khararnama but referred to the allegations made in such notice as false and vague.
(4). In the backdrop of the above mentioned facts, in 1987, the appellant, therefore, filed O.S. No. 33/1987 in the 1st Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada for recovery of the amounts due under the pronotes of Rs. 4,72,000/- and Rs. 2,15,000/- with interest and costs. The respondent No. 2 contested the suit by filing written statement on his own behalf and also on behalf of the respondent No. 1 firm denying any execution of the pronotes in favour of the appellant and further stating that the pronotes were forged by the appellant with the assistance of his brother-in-law and the Clerk.
(5). It was further alleged that the appellant bore a grudge against the respondents and was involved in many criminal cases and since he was not looking after his wife and children properly, the respondents had opened an account in the name of Narayanmurthy and were sending monies regularly in that account for the maintenance of the appellants family and therefore, it was alleged that no money was ever borrowed from the said Pynda Ramakumar, whom the respondent
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.