Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 1731
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
G.RADHA RANI, J
Smt.A.Sujatha – Appellant
Versus
Mr.C.Raghurama Rao – Respondent
SA/1249/2004
The burden of proof lies with the defendant to establish repayment in a loan dispute, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be interfered with unless substantial questions of law arise.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 87 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Burden of proof - The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.68,800/- alleging loan repayment failure by the defendant. The trial court decreed the suit, finding the defendant failed to prove repayment. The appellate court upheld this decision, confirming the trial court's findings. (Paras 7, 21, 24)
(B) Second Appeal - Jurisdiction - The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless substantial questions of law are involved. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial questions were found. (Paras 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff lent Rs.40,000/- to the defendant in 1993, documented by a promissory note. The defendant claimed repayment through a disputed receipt. The trial court found the defendant's evidence insufficient to prove repayment.
Findings of Court:
The trial court decreed the suit for Rs.40,000/- with interest, finding the defendant failed to establish repayment. The appellate court confirmed this finding.
Issues: The main issues included whether the suit was barred by limitation, the validity of the discharge receipt, and the burden of proof regarding repayment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof lies with the defendant to establish repayment, and the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were upheld. The alteration in the promissory note was not material.
Result: Second Appeal dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is filed by the appellant - appellant - defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2004 passed in A.S.No.106 of 2003 by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2003 passed in O.S.No.70 of 1996 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.
2. The respondent is the plaintiff and the parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court.
3. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money of Rs.68,800/- with future interest @ 2 % per month on the decretal amount. The plaintiff averred that he gave the defendant a sum of Rs.40,000/- as loan on 27.07.1993 at Nizamabad in the presence of two witnesses by name Sri B.H.Raj Gopal Rao and Sri L.Sreedhar and the defendant executed a promissory note on 27.07.1993 in favor of the plaintiff at Nizamabad for the said loan amount agreeing to repay the same on demand along with interest @ 2 % interest per month. Subsequently, when the plaintiff approached the defendant and demanded her to repay the loan amount, she dodged the matter. She failed to pay any amount to the plaintiff for nearly three (03) years. As such filed the suit for an amount of Rs.68,800/- for the principal amount of Rs.40,000/- and interest @ 2 % per month on the same from 27.07.1993 to 26.07.1996 (for a period of three years), which comes to Rs.28,800/-.
4. The defendant filed written statement contending that she was running a school in the name and style of Suryodaya Convent at Nizamabad. The plaintiff worked in the said institution as a private teacher. A person by name Sreedhar, who was shown as an attestor of the suit document worked as Principal in the above institution since long time. The plaintiff was related to him. The relationship between the said Sreedhar and the defendant was strained. Due to which, the plaintiff filed the present suit to help the said Sreedhar. She further submitted that the plaintiff used to receive salary whenever he required in a lump sum manner. Thus, the defendant had to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the plaintiff, for which the defendant executed the document. Later on, on different occasions, the amount was paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff received the same through bank withdrawals. Later on, he executed a receipt on 18.04.1996 in favor of the defendant acknowledging the entire amount received by him instead of returning the suit promissory note. In the month of June, 1996, the plaintiff left the institution of the defendant and in the month of July, 1996 filed the present suit and prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. Basing on the said pleadings, the trial court framed the issues as follows:
(i) Whether the repayment and discharge pleaded by the defendant are true?
(ii) To what relief?
6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the original promissory note dated 27.07.1993 as Ex.A1, the receipt dated 27.07.1993 as Ex.A2, a photo-copy of the receipt dated 18.04.1996 for Rs.15,655/- as Ex.A3 and the termination order dated 25.03.1993 as Ex.A4. The defendant examined herself as DW.1 and got marked the receipt dated 18.04.1996 as Ex.B1. She got examined one of the attestors of Ex.B1 as DW.2 and the scribe of Ex.B1 as DW.3.
7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court held that the defendant failed to establish the repayment of discharge pleaded by her, as such decreed the suit for Rs.40,000/- with interest thereon @ 12 % per annum from 27.07.1993 till the date of decree and @ 6 % per annum from the date of decree till realization with proportionate costs.
8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, the defendant preferred A.S.No.106 of 2003. The same was heard by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad and vide judgment and decree dated 24.03.2004 dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the judgment and decree
