The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 96 C.P.C. against the decree and judgment, dated 18.08.2008, in O.S.No.789 of 2006 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.

The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,76,656/- being the principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum from 05.12.2003 to 04.12.2004 and with subsequent interest at the same rate on Rs.3,10,000/- from 05.12.2004 to 04.12.2005 and further interest at the same rate on Rs.3,84,400/- from 05.12.2005 to 03.12.2006.

The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed the principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff for business purpose of the defendant at Guntur on 05.12.2003 under promissory note executed on the even date agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum with yearly rests, but failed to pay the amount in spite of repeated demands. The plaintiff sought a decree for Rs.4,76,656/- with subsequent interest at the contractual rate from the date of the suit till the date of realization and costs.

The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing written statement denying the whole transaction and further stating that his son, Vudumula Srinivasa Reddy previously had done business in Chillies on commission basis transacting with the plaintiff who was running a cold storage under the name and style ‘Sri Lakshmi Vidya Cold Storage’ at Nallapadu Road, Guntur and the defendant executed empty promissory notes on the assurance by his son that the empty promissory notes would be kept with the plaintiff to secure the loans as his son had no land. It is further pleaded that on receipt of summons in the suit, the defendant questioned his son and the defendant was informed about the discharge of the loan, but the pronote was retained by the plaintiff on the pretext of misplacing the same.

The plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and got examined another witness as P.W.2. Ex. A1, promissory note, dated 05.12.2003, was marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. B1 and B2 were marked. Ex.B1 is the discharged pronote, dated 05.12.2003 and Ex. B2 is the discharged pronote, dated 05.12.2003.

After hearing both the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit holding that the presumption, under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘N.I. Act’), of the suit promissory note being supported by consideration is drawn on admission of the execution of the promissory note, but the defendant failed to discharge the burden that it was not supported by consideration. The trial Court took note of Section 20 of the N.I. Act which enables a holder of a negotiable instrument to fill up the instrument if duly stamped and signed by an executant. The trial Court held the view that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount and decreed the suit for an amount of Rs.4,76,656/- payable with simple rate of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.

Aggrieved by the decree and the judgment, this appeal was filed.

The learned counsel for the appellant / defendant contended that the plaintiff obtained several promissory notes merely signed by the defendant and not attested by any person and as soon as the money under the pronote was discharged, such promotes were returned to the defendant and therefore, Exs. B1 and B2 were filed in support of such defence; that the plaintiff had admitted about Exs. B1 and B2 in the cross-examination, yet, the trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence lead by the defendant to show that the suit promissory note was also not suppo