Suit on a promissory note for Rs.5,00,000 with cheques issued as part payment; trial court decreed recovery with interest. Defendant appealed citing lack of consideration, income-tax violations, and absence of money lender's licence. The High Court found the statutory presumptions undischarged and affirmed the decree.
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.
13217 |
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENry FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
APPEAL SUIT NO: 593 OF 2017
Appeal under section 96 R/w Order 41Rule 1 of C.P.C againstthe Judgment and Decree Daled24.01.2O17made in O.S.No.334of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar
Between:
Atchuta Jagadish Chandra, S/o. Subramanyam,Occ- Business,R/o. Krishna Sree Buildings, 4th Floor, Ayyappa Society,Madhapur, Hyderabad
...Appel lanUDefendant
AND
Karamsetti Venkata Varaprasada Rao, S/o.Venkata Subba Rao,Occ: Business, Permanent R/o.Podili Village and Mandal,Presently R/oD No.03-3-83'Flat No.403, Besides Hotel Manjeera, Shown OakApartments,Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
...RespondenUPlaintiff
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2017(ASMP. NO :1445 OF20171
Petition under Section't 51 of CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in supportof the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto stay all furtherproceedings pursuantto the Judgmentand decree passedin OS No.334 of 2014 d1.24.01.2017 on thefile of Principal SeniorCivil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L. B.Nagar includingexecution of decree during the pendencyof appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant :SRlC VISWANATH
Counsel forthe Respondent: SRIV V RAGHAVAN
The Court delivered the following: Judgment
a
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N.TUKT\ IAMJt
APPEAL SUIT No. 593 OF 2017
JUDGMENT
I have heard Mr.C Viswanath, learned counse tr the appellant and Mr.V.V.Raghavan, learned counsel for the respc I dent.
t I
rVIRJ -.1..'.Nat, )of 20t7
2
in the presence of another witness/PW-3. Subsequently, fotlowing continued default and upon further demand, the defendant issued two cheques on'15.07.2013-Cheque Nos 043121 and 043125, marked as Exs.A-2 and A-3-for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/respectively, as part payments towards the outstanding amount However, upon presentment for collection, both cheques were returned unpaid with the Bank's memos/ Exs.A-4 and A-5 bearing the endorsemenl,'payment stopped by the drawer.' ln response, the plaintiff served a legal notice/Ex.A-6 and initiated criminal proceedings by filing a complaint before the Judicial Magiskate of First Class, Podili/Ex.A-7. Hence, the suit was filed
3
^rR,/ oJ 201 7
,.1...No.i9)
,.
When the defendant requested the return of the cherl tes, the plaintiff claimed they had been misplaced. Anticipating poter :ial misuse, the defendant instructed his Banker to stop payment on t re cheques. He alleges that the plaintiff subsequently misused th:;e cheques by fabricating a claim and initiating the present procee(l rgs based on a non-existent transaction. Furthermore, he claims ihat any dues arising from the earlier promissory note hac already been discharged. Hence, he contends that the plaintiffls : uit is devoid of merit
I tt
t\ l1t,/ tL.,f .No.j9Jui 2()l 7
4
defendant's address and to support the contention that the suit notice was not duly served upon him. (iv) Exs B-2A and B-3: Statements of the defendant's bank accounts, tendered to reflect his financial transactions during the relevant period. (v) Ex.B-5: A statement of account from Margadarshi Chit Funds, reflecting the defendant's financial dealings with that institution. During cross-examination, the defendant, as DW-1 , admitted to having signed thepromissory note and the cheques/ Exs.A-1 to A-3, though he disputed the contents and the enforceability of these instruments in his written statement
B. Upon evaluating the documentary and oral evidence presented by both parties, the trial Court concluded that the plaintiff had substantiated his claim. Accordingly, the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.9,97,025/-, along with interest at the rate of 6%per annum on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the dateof filing the suit until the date of decree, and thereafter at the same rate until realization. The Court also awarded costs in favour of the plaintiff.
I Learned counsel for the defendant contended that the trial Court failed toproperly evaluate the evidence onrecord. ltwas argued that the trial Court ought tohave held that the promissory
NrRJ ,1.5.\li91 ol 20t 7
5
ry
note/Ex.A-'l was not supported by valid considerati(rr , and that the plaintiff lacked the financial capacity to advance suc a substantial loan. Further learned counsel submitted that th: alleged loan transaction, having been effected in cash ir d exceeding Rs.20,000/-, violates the provisions of the lncome- ax Act, which prohibit cash transactions above said limit for :; ch purposes. Learned counsel also challenged the validity I the alleged endorsement of part payment of Rs.1,0001 in cash, ( lntending that the same was not accepted by the defendant and lar: ed evidentiary credibility. lt was further urged that the trial Cour should have accepted the receipts indicating repayment, which were already marked in the criminal complaint in C.C. No. 55 o1 2014, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, podili. Additionally, the defendant's counsel submitted that 1l : plaintiff does not hold a valid Money Lender's Licence, and ther: ore, the claim itself stands vitiated and unenforceable under i w. On these grounds, intervention of the appellate Court was sou1ll t.
N7R,/ ,1.5.N0.59) aJ Z0l7
6
signatures on the promissory note/Ex.A-1 and the cheques/Exs.A-2 and A-3, and although he disputed thepart payment endorsement, he failed to substantiate such denial with any credible rebuttal.The alleged repayments referred to by the defendant were not broughton record during the course of the civil suit. Moreover, it waspointed out that the defendant had not raised anyplea beforethe trialCourt concerning theplaintiffs lncome Taxreturns orhis possession (or lack thereof) of a Money Lender's Licence.Even otherwise,such contentions are irrelevant in thepresent case,as the defendanthad outright denied the very existence of the loan transaction andfailed to rebut the statutorypresumption under the lawrelatingto negotiable instruments. Therefore, it was argued thatthe impugned judgment of the trial Court is sound in law and deserves to be upheld
N]"R,/
7
1.5 N0.593 of 201 7
I I
r\7R,rI .,1.5.No.5% o[2017
B
Ex.A-1. The plaintiff s case is further supported by the allegedpart- payment endorsement and the subsequent issuance of two cheques/Exs.A-2 and A-3. Although the defendant denied the authenticity of the endorsement, he failed to take any effective steps during trial, such as seeking expert verification or leading rebuttal evidence, to disprove its authorship or to establish that the signature thereon was not his. Consequently, an adverse inferencemust be drawn against him under theprinciples of evidence law.
N]&/ ,1..'.\lt9l of 20/ 7
9
transaction itself No evidence has been adduced to s tggest that the loan was part of a regular money-lending activity re(l iring licencing. Furthermore, the law does not prohibit private r dividuals from advancing loans on an occasional basis without a roney lender,s licence. For these reasons, this contention must fail.
\
}IR,/
10
,1.5'.N0.59) aj 2017
infirmity orprocedural irregularity, thejudgment underappeal warrants no interference and is hereby affirmed
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall standclosed.
SD/.P.GOWRISHANKAR DEPUWREGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY/I
SECTIONOFFICER
To, 1 The PrincipalSenior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar [with recordsl
;. il; 6ci" snr v v RAGHAVAN' Advocate[oPUCl
ADK./psl
HIGH COURT
DATED:2510212025
JUDGMENT
r
R TiiE S t4
.<br>()
1 ? itl 20n '-l;
t !"/
'=p+P.-t-'j''
AS.No.593 ot 2017
DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT
WITHOUT COSTS
(,\4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff proved the loan transaction under the promissory note and entitlement to the suit claim despite the defendant's denial and repayment plea?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Atchuta Jagadish Chandra
Karamsetti Venkata Varaprasada Rao
N. Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
