JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in A.S.No.75 of 2013, confirming the judgment of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in O.S.No.301 of 2010, the defendant in the said suit is in second appeal.

2. The suit, O.S.No.301 of 2010, was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,78,800/- with interest and costs. The case of the respondent-plaintiff was that he and the appellant-defendant were cousins and that the appellant-defendant obtained a hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/-from him for family necessities on 10.06.2008. When asked to repay the amount, the appellant-defendant issued two post-dated cheques of Rs.1,00,000/- each bearing the dates 30.07.2009 and 30.08.2009 (Exs.A.1and A.2). The cheques were however dishonoured upon presentation for insufficiency of funds. After issuing a legal notice on 23.12.2009 (Ex.A.7), the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit.

3. The appellant-defendant contested the suit claim and asserted that the cheques were created and forged for the purpose of filing the case. He denied having taken any hand loan from the respondent-plaintiff and alleged that the respondent-plaintiff had somehow picked up Exs.A.1 and A.2 cheques which were not meant for payment of any amount to him.

4. The respondent-plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and reiterated his plaint averments. He also examined as P.W.2, the nephew of the respondent-plaintiff and the appellant-defendant.

5. P.W.2 was stated to have been present at the time of payment of the amount by the respondent-plaintiff to the appellant-defendant. The respondent-plaintiff also marked in evidence Exs.A.1 to A.7. The appellant-defendant examined himself as D.W.1 but did not mark any documents in evidence. He reiterated the contents of his written statement. He stated that the respondent-plaintiff and he had done real estate business for some time but some differences arose between them. He further asserted that taking advantage of their relationship, the respondent-plaintiff had picked up the two cheques which were not meant for any payment of amount due to him.

6. The trial Court found that no evidence had been adduced in proof of the parties having done any real estate business together. The trial Court was also inclined to hold against the appellant-defendant as he had not chosen to respond to the legal notice dated 23.12.2009 issued by the plaintiff (Ex.A.7) and had not taken any steps about the alleged misplacing of the cheques in the year 2009, even if his version was to be believed. As regards wrong mentioning of the initial of the appellant-defendant on Ex.A.7 notice, the trial Court found that though the initial was, in fact, wrongly mentioned, the house number and the remaining address were correct and the said notice was not returned with the endorsement that there was no such addressee but with the endorsement that it was unclaimed. As the endorsement ‘unclaimed’ indicated knowledge of the addressee about issuance of the notice, the trial Court held against the appellant-defendant on this point also.

7. As regards failure of the respondent-plaintiff to file a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1881’), after the dishonour of the cheques, the trial Court accepted his explanation that he did not do so owing to the close relationship between the parties. On these grounds, the trial Court decreed the suit directing payment of a sum of Rs.2,78,800/- with future interest at 6% per annum along with costs.

8. In appeal, the first appellate Court took note of the fact that the appellant-defendant did not deny his signatures on Exs.A.1 and A.2 cheques. He only alleged that the respondent-plaintiff had somehow come into possession of these cheques. Applying the presumption arising under Section 118 of the Act of 1881, the first appellate Court concluded that the said cheque