JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 96 CPC, is preferred by the unsuccessful defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 18.12.2018, passed in O.S.No.38 of 2016 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Guntur.

2. Heard Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant and Sri A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the defendant is a businessman carrying on the business in cement in the name and style of Jagarlamudi Enterprises and for his business purposes, he borrowed an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.08.2013 through RTGS from plaintiff’s account lying in Central Bank of India, Peda Gottipadu to the defendant’s business account , i.e., Jagarlamudi Enterprises, which is also lying in the same bank. The defendant, promising to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% executed a demand promissory note, in favour of the plaintiff on the even date agreeing to repay the said amount with interest either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Though the plaintiff demanded the defendant to repay the debt, the defendant did not choose to repay the same and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff got issued a registered notice on 23.09.2015 to the defendant demanding him for repayment of the amount due under the above pronote and the defendant, having received the said notice, kept quiet and failed to discharge the amount due under the pronote. All the attempts made by the plaintiff to recover the amount due under the suit pronote, proved futile. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

4. The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that the defendant is carrying on business in cement as a dealer in Peda Gotti Padu village in the name and style as “Jagarlamudi Enterprises” having branches at Prathipadu and Boyapalem. Kallam Peri Reddy, who is one of the customers of the firm since 2009, had good friendship with this defendant and the plaintiff. There were transactions between the plaintiff and Kallam Peri Reddy. On the request of Peri Reddy, two blank promissory notes and two blank cheques payable by the State Bank of Hyderabad, Kothapeta Branch, were issued to the plaintiff by this defendant. Similarly, another two blank promissory notes and two blank cheques were also issued by Kallam Peri Reddy for his transactions as security only. The said Kallam Peri Reddy was indebted to this defendant to a tune of Rs.36,00,000/- , at the time of transaction, when the plaintiff transferred the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from his account to this defendant account, but this defendant also credited Rs.4,00,000/- to the account of the plaintiff before the said transfer of Rs.12,00,000/- to withdraw the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- by the said Kallam Peri Reddy. This defendant issued two cheques for the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- each to the said Kallam Peri Reddy and the same was withdrawn from the bank on 01.08.2013. This defendant stood as mediator for the transaction done between plaintiff and Peri Reddy. The defendant is not the real borrower of the said loan. The plaintiff used the blank promissory note and got filed the suit to gain unlawful means. Kallam Papi Reddy was also indebted to the plaintiff to a tune of Rs.70,00,000/- at the time of suit transaction. On the same day, the plaintiff took 30 blank cheques in exchange of old cheques and further took 15 blank promissory notes with the signatures of said Peri Reddy.

(b) The plaintiff mortgaged the property of Kallam Peri Reddy without possession under document dated 06.02.2012 in which the plaintiff signed as 2nd attestor. The plaintiff, with an ulterior motive to gain by unlawful means from this defendant, utilized the blank promissory notes and got filed the suit without any consideration being passed under the promissory note. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Basing on the above ple