Dismissed

Thonda Venkatswamy v. Agiru Pullaiah

Telangana HC10 Oct 2014SA/654/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal against a decree recovering money based on a promissory note was dismissed. The court held that the trial and appellate courts properly appreciated the evidence, validly compared signatures, found the note genuine, and that no ground existed under Section 100 CPC to interfere with these findings.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions dismissed.

Thonda Venkatswamy Vs Agiru Pullaiah — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

SECOND APPEAL No.654 of 2014

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 10.03.2014, passed in A.S.No.2 of 2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 16.08.2012, passed in O.S.No.16 of 2010 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur.

¶5

2. The case of the appellant/defendant is that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.16 of 2010 for recovery of an amount of Rs.92,400/- along with interest at 24% per annum against him basing on the promissory note, dated 25.03.2007. The trial Court, after consideration of the material on record, decreed the suit vide judgment dated 16.08.2012, against which, the defendant filed A.S.No.2 of 2013 and the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 10.03.2014 confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

¶6

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that though the defendant has taken a plea that the pronote is a forged one and also disputed the signature on the pronote, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the same and erroneously decreed the suit. He further contended that both the Courts below have misconstrued and mis-appreciated the evidence adduced by the defendant and also not considered the grounds urged by him in proper perspective.

¶7

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and

¶8

perused the impugned judgments.

¶9

5. The trial Court has considered the evidence of P.W.1, who deposed that the defendant obtained cash of Rs.55,000/-from him and the same was also supported by P.W.2. The trial Court has compared the admitted signatures of defendant with the disputed signature on the suit pronote and found that the signature on the suit pronote is of the defendant. The trial Court has also considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A4 and gave a finding that the defendant obtained loan from the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.55,000/-, but it declined to grant interest since the same is not mentioned in the suit pronote. The appellate Court has confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Since the finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court is on proper appreciation of evidence and the same was ultimately confirmed by the appellate Court, I do not see any ground to interfere with the findings of both the Courts below by exercising the power under Section 100 C.P.C.

¶10

6. The substantial questions of law framed in ground Nos.10 to 16 are only for non-consideration of evidence adduced by the appellant and non-interference by the appellate Court with the findings of the trial Court, which are based on insufficiency of evidence. All these aspects pertain to re-appreciation of evidence and both the Courts below gave a clear finding that the defendant had obtained loan from the plaintiff basing on the pronote. Another substantial question of law raised is that whether the trial Court can compare the signatures. Under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, the trial Court is empowered to compare the

¶11

admitted signatures with the disputed signatures. More so, the Courts below gave a finding that the petition filed by the defendant to send the suit pronote to the handwriting expert was rejected on the ground that it was filed after closure of evidence of both sides and at the stage of arguments. That itself shows that the defendant is not in serious with regard to his plea that the pronote is a forged one.

¶12

7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not see any substantial question of law involved in the second appeal warranting interference by this Court. The Second Appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand dismissed.

¶13

________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J.

¶14

10^th October, 2014

¶15

Thonda Venkatswamy v. Agiru Pullaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thonda Venkatswamy v. Agiru Pullaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surya Chemicals, Vs Harika Resins Private Limited

V. Sakru Naik Vs D.Kondaiah

Fair Price Shop Dealers Welfare Association Vs Mr.R.Mutyala Raju

Siripurapu Appala Nayudu Vs Kundurhti Sreemannarayana

Jainraj Enterprises, Vs B.S.S. Reddy

Gunreddy Shekhar Reddy Vs Beejala Jagannadham