THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.1162 OF 2018

JUDGMENT:

The appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, assailing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.14 of 2016 dated 20.04.2018 passed by VI Additional District Judge at Siddipet. Appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit.

2. Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.15,40,000/- under Section 26 Order VII Rule 1 read with under Order XXXIV Rule 2 and 4 of Civil Procedure Code.

3. It is stated in the plaint that appellant-defendant for his personal necessitates borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent-plaintiff on 29.10.2012 by executing registered mortgage deed bearing document No.6513 of 2012 in respect of land in Sy.No.752/AA to an extent of Ac.2-03 guntas, which is the plaint schedule property agreeing to repay the same within one (01) year. Appellant-defendant has executed a separate document on 03.11.2012 agreeing to pay the mortgage amount @ 18% per annum. The respondent-plaintiff has got issued a legal notice on 25.11.2014 to the appellant-defendant demanding payment of the principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum, and the said notice is served to him. The amount claimed by respondent-plaintiff is as under :

1. Principle amount Rs.10,00,000/-

2. Interest @ 18% p.a.

(from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2016 on Rs.10,00,000/- ) Rs. 5,40,000/-

________________

Total Rs.15,40,000/-

________________

and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

4. Appellant-defendant has filed his written statement contending that himself and the respondent-plaintiff are residents of Jagadevpur Village, they are close friends and the respondent- plaintiff has approached him to execute some documents in his favour for obtaining bank loan from the banks and the appellant- defendant has signed on some papers by believing the respondent- plaintiff. The respondent-plaintiff taking advantage of appellant- defendants innocence, got mortgaged the property in his favour. Appellant-defendant never borrowed any amount from the respondent-plaintiff nor executed any mortgage deed in his favour and the suit is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Learned trial Court has framed the following issues :

1. Whether the suit documents are true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount?

3. To what relief?

6. Respondent-plaintiff is examined as PW1 and also examined PW2-J.Mallareddy, got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Appellant-defendant is examined as DW1, no documents are marked.

7. The learned trial Court after going to the evidence adduced by the parties and after perusing the documents has decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff, directing the appellant-defendant to pay a sum of Rs.15,40,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum, from the date of filing the suit till the date of passing the decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum, till realization on the principle sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. Preliminary decree is passed accordingly and six (06) months time is granted for redemption.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that learned trial Court erred in decreeing of the suit in favour of respondent-plaintiff without proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and also failed to see that the appellant- defendant and respondent-plaintiff are close friends and residents of Jagadevpur Village and under faith on the respondent-plaintiff, appellant has signed on some papers. The learned trial Court failed to notice that the appellant has not received an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent-plaintiff nor executed any receipt acknowledging the amount. The respondent-plaintiff taking advantage of the innocence of the appellant-defendant has obtained Ex.A1 in respect of schedule property with an intention to obtain loan from the bank. The Court below erred in believing the evidence of PW2, who is planted and interested