IMPORTANT POINT
The validity of promissory notes is upheld despite claims of coercion, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence to support such allegations.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. Priyadarsini, J.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2017 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Suryapet (hereinafter will be referred as ‘trial Court’), the defendants preferred the present appeal to set aside the impugned judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the plaint are that the respondent/plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.28,64,666/- based on three promissory notes, dated 22.10.2016 and 29.10.2016 for Rs.25,00,000/- alleging that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 being wife and husband took advance of Rs.25,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 22.10.2016 and 29.10.2016 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. The defendant No.2 stood as surety. The defendants failed to repay the above said amount and also dodged the matter by giving evasive replies, however, defendant No.1 issued cheque bearing No.733805 for Rs.15,00,000/-. When the said cheque was presented by the plaintiff in the bank, the said cheque was returned under the caption “stop payment instructions”. The plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants. Later the plaintiff came to know that the defendants are trying to alienate the properties standing in their name, hence, the plaintiff requested the defendants to discharge the loan amount on 04.06.2017 but the defendants refused the said request. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money against defendants.

4. The reply of the defendants to the plaint averments as per their written statement is as under :

(a) The plaintiff along with her husband Gopagani Yadhagiri obtained dealership for its products for Warangal District from the defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are Managing Director and Director of IPCA software Solutions Private Limited respectively. It is further alleged that the plaintiff offered Rs.10,00,000/- as goodwill and Rs.15,00,000/- towards security for the materials delivered on 11.10.2016. A draft dealership agreement along with material worth of Rs.67,50,000/- valued at dealer price were handed over to the plaintiff and her husband. The plaintiff and her husband alleged to have promised to sign agreement after consulting their counsel but did not do so and apart from that they failed to sell the products worth of Rs.67,50,000/- supplied to them. In view of the family relationship, the defendants agreed to return Rs.15,00,000/- without interest within a period of 15 months on condition that materials handed over to them are to be returned.

(b) On the insistence of the plaintiff, the defendants under influence, coercion, threat signed on three blank promissory notes for Rs.15,00,000/-. In the absence of first defendant, the plaintiff and her husband obtained two blank cheques from defendant No.2.

(c) The plaintiff and her husband along with one Chakka Haribabu one of the dealers of IPCA software solutions private limited together started harassing defendants and on 06.02.2017 they attacked the defendants at their residence. One Satyam Goud a self-styled mediator also participated in said attack and threatened defendants with dire consequences. They all obtained signatures of defendants and also father of defendant No.2 on pre printed non judicial stamp worth of Rs.100/- besides two blank cheques bearing Nos.711913 and 711914 of SBH, Hyderabad main branch. The defendants tried to book case against the plaintiff and her husband by giving complaint to police but Police helped plaintiff and her husband to close their business at Suryapet. Hence, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned trial Court has framed as many as six issues. On behalf of plaintiff, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On the other hand, the first defendant was examined as DW1, however, no documentary