Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

f IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATr> FRIDAY,THE EIGHTHDAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER SECOND APPEAL NOS: 32 OF 2011 AND 33 OF 2011 SECONDAPPEAL NO: 32 OF 2011 Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC aggrieved against the Judgment and Decree dated 16/09/2010 in A.S.No.24 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Gurazala, Guntur District confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 28/08/2008 in 0.S.N0.431 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District. BETWEEN Dhulipalla Venkateswarlu, S/o.Kotaiah, Hindu, Aged 52 years. Agriculturist R/o.Gurazala [V] & [M], Gurazala JCJC., Guntur District. ...Appellant (Appellant-Defendant) AND Inala Chandramma, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, aged 39 years. House wife, R/o. Gurazala [V] & [M], Gurazala JCJC., Guntur District. ...Respondent (Respondent-Plaintiff)

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011fSAMP. NO: 103 OF 2011^ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased; to grant stay of execution decree dated 28.08.2008 in OS No.431/2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala, confirmed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala in Judgment and Decree dated 16.09.2010 in AS No.24/2008. SECONDAPPEAL NO: 33 OF 2011 Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC aggrieved against the Judgment and Decree dated 16/09/2010 in A.S.No.25 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Gurazala, Guntur District confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 25/09/2008 in 0.S.N0.435 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District. BETWEEN: Dhulipalla Venkateswarlu, S/o. Kotaiah, Hindu, aged 52 year. Agriculturist, R/o. Gurazala Village and Mandal, JCJC Gurazala, Guntur District. ...Appellant (Appellant-Defendant) AND Inala Chandramma, W/o Srinivasa Rao, aged 39 years. House Wife, R/o Gurazala Village and Mandal, JCJC Gurazala, Guntur District. ...Respondents (Respondent-Plaintiff)

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011fSAMP. NO: 104 OF 2011) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of execution decree dated 25-9-2008 in OS.NO. 435 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala, confirmed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala in Judgment and decree dated 16-9-2010 in AS.No.25/2008. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI N SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following Common Judgment:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER SECOND APPEAL NOs.32 AND 33 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT; As parties to the both appeals are same and contention of both sides is similar, these appeals can be disposed of by common judgment. The defendant in O.S.No.431 of 2007 and O.S.No.435 of 2. 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Gurazala, Guntur District, is the appellant in both appeals. The respondent is the plaintiff In the suit. Originally suits were instituted by respondent against appellant for recovery of her promissory notes debts under two promissory notes dated 18.02.2004 and 09.05.2004. The appellant and respondent hereinafter referred to as 3. defendant and plaintiff as arrayed before the trial Court. The plaintiff instituted the suits against defendant stating 4. that defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,150/- from her on 18.02.2004 and a sum of Rs.45,000/- on 09.05.2004 agreeing to

2 BSS.J Common Judgment in SA Nos.32 and 33 of2011 repay the same with interest @18% P.a. and executed promissory notes. The plaintiff submit that defendant paid an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards part payment of dated 18.02.2004 and also paid towards part payment of promissory note Rs.2,000/- on 17.02.2007 promissory note dated 09.05.2004, failed to repay the debt, in-spite of repeated demands and she filed suits for recovery of her promissory notes debt. 5. The defendant filed written statement by resisting the not borrowed amount from claim of plaintiff, stating that he has the plaintiff on the dates stated by the plaintiff promissory notes, but he executed suit under the suit promissory notes made part payments which is renewal of old promissory note as he borrowed a sum of Rs.30,550/- on 09-05-2001. Therefore supported by cash consideration on 20.02.2001 and Rs.27,400/- promissory notes are not as stated in the plaint. suit

3 BSS.J Common Judgment in SA Nos.32 and 33 of2011 On the basis of above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues in both suits, which are similar which reads as 6. under:- Issues in O.S.No.431 of 2007: 01. Whether the suit promissory note, dated 18.02.2004 is true, valid, genuine document and binding on the defendant? 02. Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration? 03. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for the suit amount? Issues in O.S.No.435 of 2007: 01. Whether the suit promissory note, dated 09.05.2004 is true, valid, genuine document and binding on the defendant? 02. Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration? 03. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for the suit amount?

4 BSS.J Common Judgment in SA Nos.32 and 33 of 2011 The parties went to the trial. In O.S.No.431 of 2007, Pws.l 7. and 2 were examined and Exs.Al and A2 were marked. On behalf of defendant, Dws.l and 2 were examined and Ex.Bl was marked. In 0,S.No.435 of 2007, Pw.l was examined and Exs.Al and A2 were marked. On behalf of defendant, Dw.l was examined and Ex.Bl was marked. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence trial 8. Court decreed the suits filed by the plaintiff. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, defendant presented two separate appeals vide A.S.No.24 of 2008 and A.S.No.25 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Gurazala, Guntur District, which were dismissed by the First Appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 10. In these circumstances, the present second appeals are presented.

5 % BSS.J Common Judgment in SA Nos.32 and 33 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel Mr.Dushyanth, representing on behalf of Mr.N.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the 11. appellant. None appeared for the respondent/plaintiff. 12. The learned counsel for. appellant would submit that appellant is an agriculturist entitled to the benefit under Act 4 of 1938 which failed to consider by the Courts below. He would further submit that suit promissory notes are not supported by cash consideration which is renewal of old promissory notes of the year 2001. He prays to allow the appeal. 13. Both appeals have admitted under similar substantial questions of law raised at Ground Nos.l3 and 14, which reads as under:- (1) Whether a person who is shown an Agriculturist in the cause title is entitled to the benefit under the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Agriculturist Relief Act? (2) Whether the defendant is not entitled for the benefit of A.P. (Andhra Area) Agriculturist Relief Act for mentioning his avocation a business, though he

6 BSS.J Common Judgment in SA Nos.32 and 33 of 2011 is an agriculturist and he is entitled for the benefit under the provisions of the Act? (3) Whether the defendant comes under Section 3(ii) of A.P.(Andhra Area) Agricultural Relief Act? (4) Whether the defendant's debt to be scale down in terms of Section 7 of A.P. (Andhra Area) Agricultural Relief Act? In the present case, both Courts have concurrently came to the 14. conclusion that, suit promissory notes are supported by consideration and defendant failed to prove his plea of no consideration. The defendant as Dw.l categorically admitted in his evidence in O.S.No.431 of 2007 that, he borrowed amount from the plaintiff for his business purpose and executed Ex.Al promissory note. The only contention which learned counsel for appellant raised in the second appeal is that interest claimed by the plaintiff is excessive on the ground that defendant is an agriculturist. Now it would be beneficial to quote Section 3 of A.P. (Andhra Area) Agriculturist Relief Act, 1938 which read as under:

7 BSSJ Common Judgment in SA Nos.32 and 33 of2011 "3. Definitions. - In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, - (i) 'person' means an individual and includes an undivided Hindu family; but does not include a body corporate, a charitable or religious institution or an unincorporated company or association; (ii) 'agriculturist' means a person who (a) has a saleable interest in any agricultural or horticultural land in the Andhra area of the State of Andhra Pradesh, not being land situated within a municipality or cantonment, which is assessed by the State Government to land revenue (which shall be deemed to include peshkash and quit rent), or which is held free of tax under a grant made, confirmed or recognized by Government; or (b) holds an interest in such land under a landholder under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908 as tenant, ryot or under tenure holder; or (c) [***] (d) holds a lease of such land from any person specified in sub clause (a), or (b) or is a sub lessee of such land; Provided that a person shall not be an agriculturist if he- (A) has in both the financial years ending 31st March, 1935 been assessed to income tax under the [Indian Income tax Act, 1922 or under the income tax laws of any part of India which, immediately before the Istday of November 1956, was comprised in a Part B State or foreign Government; or

I 8 BSSJ Common Judgment in SA Nos.32 and 33 of 2011 (B) has in all the four half years immediately preceding the 1st October, 1937 been assessed to profession tax on a half yearly income of more than six hundred rupees derived from a profession other than agriculture under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Municipalities Act, 1920, the Cantonments Act, 1924, or any law governing municipal or local bodies in any other part of India or any foreign State in the continent of India or under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Boards Act, 1920 in a panchayat which was a union before the 26th August 1930; or (C) has within the two years immediately preceding the 1st October 1937, been assessed to property or house tax in respect of buildings or lands other than agricultural lands, under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Municipalities Act, 1920 the Cantonment Act, 1924, or any law governing municipal or local bodies in any other part of India or under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Boards Act, 1920, in a panchayat which was a union before the 26th August, 1930, provided that the aggregate annual rental value of such buildings and lands, whether let out or in the occupation of the owner, is not less than Rs 600; or (D) is a landholder of an estate under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908, or of a share or portion thereof, whether setely registered or not, in respect of which estate, share or portion any sum exceeding five hundred rupees is payable as peshkash, qr any sum exceeding on hundred rupees is payable

9 BSSJ Common Judgment in SA Nos.32 and 33 of 2011 under one or more of the following heads, namely, quit rent, jodi, kattubadi, poruppu or other dues of a like nature." As seen from the above provision, which makes it clear that. 15. agriculturist means who has saleable interest in any agricultural land to claim any benefit under Agriculturists Relief Act. A perusal of evidence of Pw.l and also Dw.l in both suits, it is not suggested to Pw.l in his cross examination that defendant is an agriculturist and Dw.l in O.S.No.431 of 2007 categorically admitted that he borrowed money for his business purpose and he has also not produced any document to support his contention that he is an agriculturist. In written statement filed by defendant in both suits he has not stated that he is an agriculturist due to that interest claimed by the plaintiff has to be scaled down as per Section 4 of A.P. (Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938. There is no pleading and proof that defendant is an agriculturist entitled to the benefit under Act 4 of 1938. The defendant has also not produced any document to show that he is having agricultural lands to claim benefit under Act 4 of 1938. The interest claimed by the plaintiff is 18% p.a. which cannot be said that it is excessive and usurious. when defendant borrowed amount for his business purpose. When

10 BSSJ Common Judgment in SA Nos. 32 and 33 of2011 execution of promissory note admitted, presumption under Section 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act would arise and when defendant failed to discharge initial burden of proving the non-existence of consideration by direct evidence or on preponderance of probabilities, plaintiff is entitled to seek a decree basing on suit promissory notes. The defendant admitted execution of the promissory note, pleaded that it is not supported by consideration but admitted that he made part payments which he endorsed on the back of suit promissory notes and failed to prove that suit promissory notes are not supported by consideration. 16. Basing on material and evidence both Courts have rightly appreciated the evidence and decreed the suits filed by the plaintiff. In these circumstances, finding no such questions that required 17. consideration in the Second Appeal, much less substantial question of law, or appreciation of evidence as pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant, these Second Appeals have to be dismissed. In the result. Second Appeals are dismissed. In the 18. circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.

11 \ BSS.J Common Judgment in SA Nos.32 and 33 of2011 Consequently, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. The interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. SD/- E KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Senior Civil Judge Gurazala. Guntur District, (with records if any) 2. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District, records if any) 3. One CC to Sri. N .Subba Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of A.P.at Amaravathi. 5. Three C.D Copies. (with Ssl sree 4k

HIGH COURT DATED:08/12/2023 COMMON JUDGMENT SA.NOS.32 OF 2011 & 33 OF 2011 DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS