Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
RENUKA YARA
Pagidipalli Isaaku – Appellant
Versus
Vemulapalli Veera Venkata Laxmi Narasimha Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RENUKA YARA, J.
Heard Sri G. Sushanth Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/appellant/defendant, on the question of admission. Perused the record.
2. This Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant/ appellant/defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2025 in A.S.No.14 of 2024 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge at Sathupalli (for short ‘the First Appellate Court’) confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 06.02.2024 in O.S.No.115 of 2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Sathupalli (for short ‘the Trial Court’), wherein, a suit filed for recovery of money has been decreed and the same has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court in appeal.
3. The background facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note and the office copy of legal notice issued to the appellant herein. The case of the respondent was that the appellant borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- to be repaid with interest at 24% per annum, but failed to repay the borrowed amount. Thereafter, the appellant issued a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on SBH, Madhira Branch and then the same was submitted for realisat
Promissory notes require evidence to challenge validity; mere allegations are insufficient to avoid liability for repayment under a loan agreement.
A sporadic money lending does not constitute a business; appropriate evidence must be presented to challenge loan authenticity.
The provision of clear documentation in loan transactions is essential for recovery, and the burden of proof lies with the debtor to demonstrate repayment.
Lending money on rare occasions does not constitute a money-lending business under the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, thus affecting the maintainability of related suits.
The defendant's evidence rebutting the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the plaintiff's obligation to maintain account books under the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act w....
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.
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
