Second appeal by defendant contesting a suit decree for Rs.5,65,450 on a promissory note, claiming signatures were forcibly obtained without consideration. Courts below held presumption under Section 118 NI Act applied and was not rebutted. No substantial question of law found; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAJ^
TUESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
SECOND APPEAL NO: 674 OF
H t H Section 100 of C.P.C against the Judgment andDecree in A.S.No.121 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the III District Judge, Nellore. Preferred against the Decree in O.S No 100 Of 2016 dated 19.09.2022 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge Kavali, Nellore District.
Between:
Boddu Ramachandra Reddy, S/o Konda Reddy, Aged about 70 years R/o QOCO M ?■ ‘=®"’='’ulakshniipurani Village, Hamlet of Bogole Mandal SPSR Nellore District.
...Appellant/Appellant/Defendant AND
Dagada Venkateswara Reddy, S/o Venkata Subba Reddy, Aged about 52 M Cenchulakshmipuram Village, Bogole Mandal SPSR Nellore District.
...Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
lA NO: 2 OF 207^
Petition under Order 41 Rule 5 of C.P.C r/w Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of IrLe^d ' farther A o pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dt. 16-08-2023 passed District Jud^ae°^N°M^ ° °' of the III Additional Distric Judge, Nellore including execution pending disposal of mam Appeal and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI N.A. RAMACHANDRA MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondents:
The Court made the following Judgment:
APHC010610732023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3209]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
SECOND APPEAL No; 674 of 2023
Between:
Boddu Ramachandra Reddy
...APPELLANT
AND
Dagada Venkateswara Reddy
• • • RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent: —
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The appellant herein is the defendant in O.S.No.lOO of 2016, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kavali. The respondent-plaintiff filed the said suit for recoveryofanamountof Rs.5,65,450/on the strength of a promissory note dated 19.06.2016. 2) The appellant-defendant contested the suit by fling the written statement, inter alia, stating he never borrowed any amount under the suit pronote, that the respondentplaintiff
2
forcibly obtained the signature of the appellant-defendant on empty promissory note; that no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note and the same was brought into existence because of filing of Insolvency Petition by the son of appellant defendant, who had borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,00p/- from the respondent / plaintiffs brother and had misunderstandings. Learned Trial Judge formulated the following issues for consideration:
- The respondent-plaintiff got himself examined as P. W. 1 and the scribe of the suit pronote (Ex.Al) was examined as P.W.2. The appellant-defendant was examined as D.W. 1 and the neighbour and the wife of the appellant-defendant were examined as D.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.Bl to B7 were marked on behalf of the appellant-
defendant. Learned Trial Judge after examining the evidence, both oral and documentary, vide judgrrient dated 19.09.2022 decreed the suit with costs for a sum of Rs.5,65,450/- with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date
3
of decree and at 6% p.a. from the date of decree tillthedate of realisation on principal amount of Rs.5,55,000/-. 4) Against the said judgment and decree the appellantdefendant filed A.S.No. 121 of 20-22 on the file of learned 111 Additional District Judge, Nellore. Learned 111 AdditionalDistrict Judge, after due consideration of. the matter, by judgmentdated 16.08.2023 dismissed the said appeal. However, consideringthe relevant aspects, the judgment and decree of the trialCourtwas modified to the effect that the respondent-plaintiffis entitled to recover the suit amount with costs and interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of the deposit of the entire suit amount i.e.,31.10.2016 on the principal amount of Rs.5,55,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the AppellateCourt,the present Second Appeal has been preferred. 5) Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, inter alia, contended that the judgment and decree of the TrialCourt, as confirmed by the appellate Court to the extent it isadversetothe appellant-defendant, is not tenable and contrary totheevidence on record. He submits that the Courts below failed to appreciate the pleadings and the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties in a proper perspective and the orders / judgments oftheCourt’s below warrant interference of this Court. He submits that both
4
the Courts below failed to appreciate that the respondent-plaintiff obtained the promissory note under coercion. More particularly, as the appellant-defendant’s son filed Insolvency Petition,wherein the brother of the respondent-plaintiff was figured as 8*^ respondent. While stating that no consideration was passed on in respect of the said suit promissory note, he further submits that another suit in O.S.No.l23 of 2016, on the strength of some pronote by forging the signature of the appellant-defendant , was filed, wherein the P.W.2 gave third party affidavit for attachment of the property. Referring to the substantial questions of law, the learned counsel also contends that the judgment and decree of the courts below are perverse, contrary to the evidence on record and seeks to allow the appeal.
5
pronote but denied the consideration, the learned Trial Judge opined that the burden is on the defendant to show that the ‘ document (suit pronote) was without consideration. Learned trial Judge had also noted that as per the cross-examinationofD.W.l (defendant) his written statement was prepared on the instructions of his son and he does not know where it was prepared by his son. Coming to the evidence of D.W.2 (neighbor of defendant) the learned Judge noted that the evidence of D.W.2 reveals that he was nof present at the time of execution of suit pronote, though D.W.l deposed that his signatures were forcibly obtained on blank pronote and at that time his neighbourD.W.2 also witnessed the same. Learned trial Judge also notedthatas per the evidence of D.W.3, who is wife of D.W.l, nonecametothe house of D.W.l, which is contrary to the evidence ofD.W.l. The learned trial Judge recorded a categorical findingthattheentire evidence of D.Ws.l to 3 does not create any confidencethatthe plaintiff forcibly obtained the signatures of D.W.l on the suit pronote and filed the suit. 7) Appreciating the judgment of the Trial Court with reference to the evidence let in by the parties, the learned Appellate Court examined the matter. The learned Appellate Court noticedseveral discrepancies / inconsistencies in the evidence adduced on behalf
6
of the defendant. Learned Appellate Court noted that version of the defendant and his wife (D.W.3) are cohtradictory. The finding of the learned Appellate Court in this regard reads as follows;
“17. Apart from it, DW 3 stated in her cross-examination, that one Raghu Rami Reddy scribed the promissory note on the date of alleged incident and the plaintiff. Rami Reddy, D. Subba Reddy and M. Rami Reddy threatened them to execute promissory note. But according to the version of the defendant and his evidence, the plaintiffand others forcibly obtained his signatures on the empty promissory note. The evidence of DW3, wife of the defendant, since stated, that the promissory note was scribed by Raghu Rami Reddy on the date of alleged incident, is contrary to the evidence of DW 1. Moreover, DW 3, the wife of the defendant stated in her cross examination that nobody came to their house at the time of alleged incident, but it is the evidence of DW 1 that one J. Narayana Reddy was present at the time of the alleged incident of obtaining signatures on the empty promissory note. The evidence of DWs. 1 to 3 is contrary with regard to the alleged incident that the plaintiff and others trespassed into their house and obtained the signatures of the defendant forcibly on the empty promissory note.”
- The learned Appellate Court also observed that if the plaintiff obtained the signatures forcibly, the defendant would have given complaint to the police and that the defendant did not give any complaint to the police or issued notice to the plaintiff with regard to the obtaining of signatures forcibly and, therefore, the said contention of the defendant is not reliable and believable. With
7
reference to the insolvency petition filed by the son of the ‘ defendant and giving third party affidavits in O.S.No.l23 of 2016, the learned Appellate Judge recorded a finding that the same cannot be a ground to discard the version of the plaintiffthatthe defendant borrowed the amount and executed the suit promissory note. Learned Appellate Judge also held that the since the defendant admitted his signature on the promissory note, the presumption under Section 118 of the N.I. Act appliesand the burden shifts to the defendant and that the plaintiffadvanced cogent and convincing evidence, but the evidence adduced by the defendant is not at all convincing and sufficient torebutthesaid presumption. The learned Judge also held that in view of the admission of the defendant as to the signatures on the promissory note, it can be safely concluded that the defendantreceivedthe amount from the plaintiff. 9) On appreciation of judgments of both the courts below,the same are supported by the valid and cogent reasons. Both the Courts below recorded categorical findings and concurrentlyheld that the suit pronote was executed by the defendant by disbelieving his version. Though the learned counsel for the appellant sought to impress upon this Court that substantial questions of law are involved in the matter, this Courtseenosuch
8
question of law, which falls for consideration by this Court. Both the Courts below, as noted above, recorded concurrent findings on facts and in the absence of any substantial question of law, the interference of this Court in the present Second Appeal is not warranted. Therefore, in the said view of the matter, this Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 10) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
To,
SECTION OFFICER
sree
HIGH COURT
DATED;02/01/2024
JUDGMENT
SA.No.674 of 2023
DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit promissory note dated 19.06.2016 was true, valid and binding on the defendant despite his claim that signatures were forcibly obtained on a blank pronote.
Whether any substantial question of law arose warranting interference in the second appeal against concurrent findings of the courts below.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Boddu Ramachandra Reddy
Dagada Venkateswara Reddy
Ninala Jayasurya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
