THE HON’BLE JUSTI CE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

JUDGMENT

:

1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.62 of 2017, dated 24.02.2020 by the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar.

2.1. Appellant-plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of Rs.27,61,960/- along with interest at the rate of 2% per month on the principal amount from the date of suit till the date of realization.

2.2. Plaintiff and defendant are known to each other since they are residents of same locality, on such acquaintance, at the request of defendant, plaintiff has advanced a loan of Rs.24,14,000/- on 16.05.2015. The defendant having received the said amount executed pro-note to that effect in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of Ch.Rajaiah with a promise to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. Pro-note is scribed by the defendant and he paid interest till December, 2016. Defendant is working as Senior Assistant in DEO Office and was due to retire from service. The plaintiff approached the defendant to repay the loan amount but he postponed the same on one or the other pretext. The plaintiff vexed with the attitude of the defendant, got issued a legal notice on 12.05.2017 calling the defendant to repay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The defendant having received the notice, got issued reply on 24.05.2017 denying the liability and prayed to decree the suit.

3.1. Defendant filed written statement and contended that his wife Satyalaxmi and the plaintiff are close friends since last thirty years and his wife has obtained a loan of Rs.2,45,000/- from the plaintiff during the year 2001-2002 and she repaid Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2007, however, plaintiff insisted to repay the compound interest @ 24% and deducted the amount towards part of interest and that the plaintiff has forcibly obtained promissory note for Rs.8,50,000/- on 16.09.2007 from his wife as security. On 16.05.2017, the defendant and his wife called one Karra Damodar for settlement of payment of amounts. Plaintiff made false demand of Rs.24,00,000/- and odd calculating heavy compound interest. Parties came to a settlement for Rs.10,00,000/- which has to be paid within a year without any interest but the plaintiff and her husband insisted the defendant to execute a pro-note for Rs.24,14,000/- stating that the same would be kept as security till payment of settlement of amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. After its execution, the pro-note and the Xerox copies of pro-note, dated

16.09.2007 were handed over to the plaintiff.

3.2. Defendant paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 05.01.2017 by transferring an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- each from his account to the four accounts held by the plaintiff in her name and in the name of her husband and also in the name of Hanuman Traders being done by plaintiff’s family. The amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is discharged by the defendant, when himself and his wife insisted the plaintiff to return the pro-note executed by him, the plaintiff has demanded some more money and got issued notice on 12.05.2017 by suppressing the above facts. Defendant has given a suitable reply and no interest is specified in the pro-note, dated 16.05.2016 and Ch.Rajaiah was not present at the time of execution and prayed to dismiss the same. 4. The Trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the suit pro-note, dated 16.05.2015 is supported by consideration noted therein?

2. Whether the suit promissory note was obtained by the plaintiff under force and towards security for repayment of Rs.10,00,000/-?

3. Whether the plaintiff is money lender and if so, she got license under A.P. (T.A.) Money Lenders Act?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the entire suit amount?

5. To what relief?

5. The plaintiff has examined herself as PW.1, got examined PW.2 Ch.Rajaiah and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Defendant is examined as DW.1, also examined DW.2-Karra Damodar, and got marked Exs.B1 to B5.

6. The Trial Court after