Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 15154
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
Sambasivarao Naidu, J
V.MANNEMMA – Appellant
Versus
H.LEELA – Respondent
CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.14 OF 2018
A party's failure to enter the witness box to state their case on oath and offer themselves for cross-examination creates a presumption that their version of events is incorrect. Additionally, evidence cannot be considered if it is not supported by prior pleadings in the written statement.
Headnote:The case involves a suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note where the plaintiff claimed a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- was advanced to the first defendant. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the appellant contended that the promissory note was fabricated, the witness (her son) was not present during execution, and the plaintiff lacked the capacity to lend the amount. The court examined the validity of the promissory note and the impact of the appellant's failure to testify. The primary issues focused on whether the trial court erred in relying on a witness who allegedly could not understand the language of the document and whether the failure to examine the scribe of the promissory note was fatal to the case. The court reasoned that evidence without pleading cannot be considered, noting that the appellant's initial written statement did not deny the execution based on the son's absence. Furthermore, the court held that a party's failure to enter the witness box creates a presumption that their case is incorrect. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual basis of the recovery suit based on a promissory note. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. grounds for appeal regarding witness credibility, capacity to lend, and omission of the scribe. (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. the necessity of pleadings to support evidence and the effect of a party not testifying. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. presumption of consideration under the negotiable instruments act and the legal effect of failing to enter the witness box. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. final adjudication dismissing the appeal. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT:
This fist civil appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful 1st defendant of O.S.No.171 of 2009 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, questioning the Judgment in the above referred Original Suit by which the trial Court passed a decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, directing the present appellant to pay Rs.14,00,000/- with proportionate costs and future interest @ 6% per annum.
2. As could be seen from the record, the respondent/plaintiff has filed the Original Suit against the appellant herein and the Chief Manager (defendant) State Bank of India, Koti main branch, Hyderabad. As per the averments made in the plaint, it is claimed that the plaintiff and her husband are tenants of 1st defendant. The defendant No.1 and her son developed close family relation with the plaintiff and her family members and with the said acquaintance, they approached the plaintiff and requested for a hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to meet their family necessities. In view of the close family relation, the plaintiff obliged the said request and advanced an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to defendant No.1 on 25.07.2007. The defendant No.1 has executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and also executed a receipt acknowledging the receipt of the above said money. Her son signed the documents as a witness along with the others.
3. The plaintiff has claimed that the defendant No.1 failed to repay the amount thereby issued a legal notice demanding the repayment of principal amount with interest. But, the 1st defendant issued a reply with false averments and plaintiff got issued a rejoinder. Since there was no proper response, plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of outstanding amount which includes principal and interest.
4. The defendant having appeared before the trial Court denied the plaint averments and contended that when there was failure on the part of plaintiff to pay the agreed rent for the premises leased out in their favour, when she got issued a notice demanding Rs.13,80,000/- the plaintiff created such promissory note, she never borrowed any amount, and she need not pay any amount to the plaintiff and thus prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. The following issues were framed by the trial Court:
1. Whether the promissory note dated 25.07.2007 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount?
3. To what relief?
6. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked on behalf of defendant No.1. The trial Court having appreciated the pleadings and evidence of both parties held that the plaintiff is able to prove the suit claim. Accordingly, passed a decree directing the 1st defendant, the present appellant to pay Rs.14,00,000/- with interest @6% per annum.
7. The appellant has filed the present appeal on the ground that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper way. The trial Court failed to appreciate that the son of the appellant herein was not present on the date of execution of promissory note, thereby the question of his attesting Ex.A1 does not arise. The trial Court failed to appreciate that the 1st respondent has no capacity to lend such a huge amount. The appellant is aged about 80 years. She is not in a position to move from the bed. Therefore, she got executed a ge
