JUDGMENT:

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/ defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2014 in O.S.No.35 of 2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda.

2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as arrayed in the original suit, for the sake of brevity and better understanding of the case.

3. The plaintiff has filed this underlying suit in O.S.No.35 of 2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda, for recovery of amount of Rs.5,69,566/- from the defendants, basing upon a pronote executed by the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 is the guarantor for the said transaction.

4. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.4 lakhs on 10.05.2010 to meet their family and personal necessities, and the defendant No.1 executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the said date by agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, and the defendant No.2 stood as a guarantor for the said amount, and as the defendants failed to repay the said suit amount, despite several demand notices, the underlying suit was filed for recovery of the amount covered under the pronote, dated 10.05.2010, along with the jamin promissory note, dated 10.05.2010. Further, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice demanding the said amount on 10.02.2012, which was served to the defendants, however, they have refused to repay the same, which constrained the plaintiff to file the present suit.

5. The defendants have filed a written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable either in law or facts, and that the same is liable to be dismissed, and denied the borrowing of the money and also the execution of said promissory note contending that it is a fabricated document.

6. The learned trial Court Judge after considering pleadings on either sides, was pleased to frame the following issues:

1) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendants ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit amount from the defendants as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

7. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and filed Exs.A1 to A4 and also examined one Mr. Sama Ranga Reddy as P.W.2. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 himself was examined as DW.1 and no documents were marked on their behalf.

8. The learned trial Court Judge, after conducting due inquiry and after appreciating the evidence on record, has come to a conclusion that the plaintiff has adduced substantial evidence for the relief prayed in the suit, and though the defendant Nos.1 and 2 contended that the promissory note is fabricated and denied borrowing of the amount from the plaintiff, no valid evidence was placed before the learned trial Court Judge. The learned trial Court was pleased to decree the said suit granting the suit amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum pending suit and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree, till realization. This judgment and decree is now challenged before this Court in the underlying appeal.

9. The main grievance of the learned counsel for defendants is that, the learned trial Court Judge has not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and ought to have seen that the plaintiff was doing a money lending business and no issue to that extent has been settled by the learned trial Court. It is contended that in a suit for recovery of the amount, the main issue arises is whether the plaintiff has appropriate license from the competent authority to do money lending business, as such, the learned trial Court ought to have framed the said issue as one of the issues. The learned counsel for the defendant places reliance on the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Tota Venkata Rao v. Raja Kumar¹2006 (4) ALD 92 and contended that in the said case, the plaintiff was doing money lend