HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI APPEAL SUIT NO.2144 of 2000

JUDGMENT:

I have heard Mr. V. Brahmaiah Chowdhary, learned Counsel for the appellant and Ms. D.Haritha Kiran, learned counsel representing Mr. G.Dhananjai, learned counsel on record, for respondent.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant challenging the decree and judgment dated 28.04.2000 in O.S.No.

27 of 1997 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, at Suryapet.

3. The suit is for recovery of Rs.92,400/- basing on promissory note.

4. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are as follows:

(a) The respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’), instituted a civil suit alleging that on 01.07.1994, the appellant/defendant (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) borrowed a sum of Rs.55,000/- and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Upon the defendant’s failure to repay the loan, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice demanding repayment. Despite this, the claim remained unsatisfied, prompting the plaintiff to file the present suit.

(b) In response, the appellant/defendant (hereinafter, ‘the defendant’) denied liability and contended that he had been a subscriber to a chit fund organized by Laxmi Chit Fund Company in 1992 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and defaulted in payment of Rs.56,500/-. One K. Rama Krishna, a fellow subscriber, intervened in the matter to settle the dues, and in that context, the defendant executed two promissory notes—one for Rs.30,000/- and another for Rs.26,000/- on 30.12.1993, in favour of K. Rama Krishna, in the presence of the chit fund owner.

(c) Subsequently, K. Rama Krishna demanded the defendant to execute a registered mortgage deed in favour of his second wife, Smt. Padma. As the defendant failed to repay amounts totaling Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,000/-, along with accrued interest of 3%, bringing the total to Rs.75,995/-, and an additional Rs.1,850/- for ploughing operations, Rs.35,000/- towards other dues, and a further Rs.5,000/- advanced for the purchase of fertilizers, cumulatively amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-, he executed a registered mortgage deed dated 23.11.1994 over land measuring 10 acres situated in Survey Nos. 87 and 88/AA in Bibigudem Village, Chivemla Mandal.

(d) This deed was executed with a clear understanding that the previously executed promissory notes for Rs.26,500/- and Rs.30,000/- in favour of K. Venkateshwarlu and another note for Rs.5,000/- in favour of the plaintiff would be returned. However, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff, acting with mala fide intent, failed to return the promissory notes. Furthermore, the plaintiff allegedly tampered with the promissory note for Rs.5,000/- by fraudulently altering the figure to Rs.55,000/- thereby initiating the present suit based on a falsified and materially altered document.

The defendant, therefore, prays for the dismissal of the suit.

5. Basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1) Whether the defendant borrowed 55,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the suit pronote dated 01.07.1994?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount?

3) To what relief?

6. During trial, the respondent/plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex:A-1/promissory note. Further got examined attestor and scribe of the promissory note as PWs.2 and 3.

On the other hand, the appellant/defendant got examined himself as DW-1 and got marked Exs:B-1 to B-5. Further got examined the Bailiff as DW-2. The Court below on considering the evidence determined all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contends that the trial Court erred in its appreciation of the defence, specifically in failing to properly consider the appellant’s assertion that the promissory note/Ex.A-1 was misused and had been materially altered, forming the basis for the suit. It was further argued that the appellant, in his written statement, had clearly outlined