Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
APPEAL SUIT No.149 of 2005
JUDGMENT:
This regular appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.195 of 2001 dated 08.12.2004 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. 2. The defendant, before the trial Court, is the appellant. The respondent herein is the plaintiff. 3. The respondent instituted the suit against appellant for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,90,100/- with interest basing on the promissory notes, dated 01.04.1999. 4. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings. 5. The case of the respondent/plaintiff in brief in the plaint was as follows: On 01.04.1999, the appellant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for the business needs from the respondent and executed two promissory notes each
for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the respondent to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum. Subsequently, respondent made several demands for repayment, but they proved futile. Hence, the suit. 6. The appellant/defendant denying the allegations in the plaint and contending in the written statement as follows: (i) He is a goldsmith and having reputation in the gold market for the last 22 years and popularly known as “Enamil Venkateswarlu”. He has business dealings with respondent since 1980, who is running a gold shop in the name and style of “Ananda Jewelry” situated in Chinna Bazar, Nellore and it is a partnership firm. (ii) The respondent whenever entrusted the work of preparing ornaments to him, used to obtain promissory notes for the value of gold as security and after preparation of the gold ornaments and after receipt of the same, used to return the said promissory notes executed by him by paying labour charges.
(iii) On 01.04.1999, respondent entrusted about 523 grams of gold to him worth of Rs.2,00,000/- with an order to prepare sixteen (16) gold chains of different weights, six (6) hand bracelets and twenty (20) rings. As usual he executed the suit promissory notes in favour of the respondent as a measure of security for the gold entrusted to him. Then he prepared the ornaments as per the order and delivered the items to the respondent on 07.04.1999, 09.04.1999 and 10.04.1999 respectively in the presence of one of his workers and received the labour charges. (iv) On 10.04.1999, appellant demanded the respondent for return of the suit promissory notes, but he represented that as his partner went to Hyderabad, it would be returned after his arrival. Again on 14.04.1999, he along with his neighbor by name G.Ravichandra went to the shop of respondent and requested him for return of the said promissory notes, but the respondent informed that the said promissory notes were misplaced while his
partner was shifting the residence and promised to return the same, whenever they were traced. Due to close friendship, he believed the words of respondent and kept quiet. But surprisingly he received suit notices. (v) The suit promissory notes are not supported by consideration and they were executed in the circumstances stated above. A case was registered against the respondent under Section 420 of IPC and he was remanded to judicial custody. At that time respondent insisted the appellant to stand as a surety for the purpose of bail, but he refused. Then onwards respondent bore grudge against him and severed the business dealings. Takings advantage of the availability of suit promissory notes, this suit is filed to make a wrongful gain. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 7. On these pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial: “1.Whether the suit promissory notes are devoid of consideration? and
2.To what relief?”
At the trial, on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined while relying on Exs.A.1 and A.2 in support of his contentions. On behalf of the appellant/defendant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.3. 9. Basing on the material and evidence, trial Court came to conclusion that the suit promissory notes are fully supported by consideration and the appellant is liable to discharge the suit debt with interest and costs and thus, decreed the suit. 10. It is against this decree and judgment, the appellant/defendant preferred this appeal. 11. Heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 12. Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence adduced by the
respondent is contrary to the pleadings because the respondent stated that on 01.04.1999 appellant borrowed two lakhs under two transactions, whereas the evidence adduced by the respondent shows, as if, there is a single transaction; that the observations of the trial Court is baseless; the trial Court ought to have considered the previous character of the respondent, who involved in a criminal case for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 477-A IPC; that the respondent used to obtain the promissory notes as a security to the gold entrusted by him without attestation by any witness and signatures of D.Ws.2 and 3 are obtained on the suit promissory notes just before filing the suit; that no consideration was passed to the appellant under the suit promissory notes; that respondent is an income tax assesse and he did not show the amount lent to the appellant on his returns for the year, 1999-2000; that the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of consideration under
the suit promissory notes; that the findings of the trial Court are bad in law and thereby prays to allow the appeal. 13. Per contra, Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances and material on record rightly decreed the suit; that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court. 15. It is against this backdrop, the following points, which arise for determination need consideration now: 1. Whether the suit promissory notes were passed for consideration? 2. Whether the plaintiff is established that he is entitled for suit amount as prayed for? and 3. To what relief?
POINT NOs.1 & 2 : It is an admitted fact that defendant is a goldsmith by profession and worked for Andhra Jewellery situated in
Chinna Bazaar, Nellore, which is a partnership firm run by the plaintiff herein since 1980. 17. It is the specific case of the defendant that whenever the plaintiff entrusted the work of preparing ornaments to him, as a security, he used to obtain promissory notes for the value of gold and after preparation of the gold ornaments and after receipt of the same used to return the promissory notes by paying labour charges. 18. The suit promissory notes in question covered under Exs.A.1 and A.2. According to the defendant, on 01.04.1999 plaintiff entrusted about 523 grams of gold to him worth of Rs.2,00,000/- with an order to prepare sixteen (16) gold chains of different weights, six (6) hand bracelets and twenty (20) rings. It is his further case that he executed promissory notes in favour of plaintiff as a measure of security for the gold entrusted to him. Then he prepared the ornaments as per the order and delivered the items to the plaintiff on 07.04.1999, 09.04.1999 and 10.04.1999 respectively and
received labour charges. But the plaintiff did not return the said promissory notes by stating that his partner went out of station and he would return the same after his arrival. 19. It is also one of the defence that on 14.04.1999, he along with one G.Ravichandra, who is his neighbor, went to the plaintiff and demanded him for return of promissory notes. On that plaintiff informed to him that they were misplaced by his partner while shifting his residence and promised to return the same. Due to the close relationship, he believed the words and kept quiet. 20. It is another defence put forth by the defendant that a criminal case was registered against the plaintiff, his brother and four others by one Dr.B.Ramarao and when the plaintiff was remanded to judicial custody, he filed a bail application and requested the defendant to stand as surety in getting the bail and as the defendant refused to stand as surety for the plaintiff, on vengeance filed this false suit by creating documents in particularly Exs.A.1 and A.2.
On the other hand, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from him on 01.04.1999 for his business purpose. In token of receipt of consideration, defendant executed two promissory notes covered under Exs.A.1 and A.2 before K.Venkaiah and B.Raghava Rao. Subsequently, defendant did not repay the same and he was constrained to file the suit against the defendant for recovery of the amount. 22. It is the well settled legal proposition that initial burden of proof of document must be discharged by the plaintiff. Then the onus of proof of the document or otherwise shifted to the defendant. For which, this Court fortified by a judgment in between B.Mallamma v. V.T.V.Rangachary1. 23. In this connection, it is also relevant to mention a judgment of this Court in between A.Ramireddy v. A.Rajareddy2, in which it was held that:
1 1997 (3) APLJ 39/ 1997 (6) ALT 36 2 1997 (1) APLJ 65
“The fundamental principle that when the suit transaction is denied, the burden necessarily be shifted to the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the said document………”
As way back in the year 1987, the Division Bench of this Court in G.Vasu v. Sayed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri3, held that: “Even with reference to Section 101 to 103 of Evidence Act and Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden of proof undisputedly lies on the plaintiff. It has to be seen that the plaintiff has to fully discharge his burden. The settled law is that when the plaintiff proved due execution of the promissory note by the defendant in his favour, the statutory presumption contemplates under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act, that is to say every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration arrived in favour of the plaintiff.”
In this connection, keep in mind another judgment reported between Bharat Barrel And Drum Manufacturing
3 AIR 1987 AP (139)
Company v. Amin Chand Payrelal4, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “Once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act would arise that it is supported by consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove non-existence of consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non-existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiff as well. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge
4 AIR 1999 SC 1008
the initial onus of proof by showing the none existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act in his favour. The Court may not insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led is to be seen with a doubt. The bare denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the plaintiff. To disprove the presumption the defendant has to bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which the Court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its none existence was probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, shall act upon the plea that it did not exist.” [ 26. In the backdrop of this legal proposition, now it has to be seen that to what extent the plaintiff adduced evidence
and discharged his burden and what extent the defendant is able to rebut the presumption raised in favour of plaintiff. 27. Plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and consistently stated about the circumstances in lending the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 01.04.1999 to the defendant and categorically stated that he lends an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 01.04.1999 and obtained Exs.A.1 and A.2 promissory notes from the defendant. More so, the plaintiff consistently stated that two promissory notes were scribed by the defendant himself in the presence of attestors. The plaintiff stood for cross examination and consistently stated his case that he is running a gold show room and used to get Rs.10,000/- per day from his business and he know the defendant since twenty five (25) years from the date of his examination. Defendant used to take gold from the plaintiff for making gold ornaments by receiving labour charges. He categorically and consistently denied the suggestions that the promissory notes were obtained by him was only as security
for the gold said to have been given to the defendant for making the ornaments and that there was no consideration under Exs.A.1 and A.2. He also denied that when the defendant did not accept to stand as surety, he filed a false case. 28. Firstly, the promissory notes are in the handwriting of the defendant and the same was admitted by the defendant that the promissory notes were executed by him and the plaintiff also stated the same in his evidence both in the chief examination as well cross examination. Not only the plaintiff, but also examined one K.Venkaiah said to be present at the time of lending the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant. He also stated in his evidence that defendant with his own handwriting executed the promissory notes in his presence after receipt of consideration and also agreed to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum. Nothing was elicited from the testimony of P.W.2 to disbelieve his evidence and he specifically stated in the cross examination that the
suit transaction took place at 11.00 A.M. at the shop of the plaintiff and he attested the suit promissory notes at the instance of defendant alone. 29. Besides him, the plaintiff also examined one B.Raghava said to be another attestor of Exs.A.1 and A.2 promissory notes. He also consistently stated as that of P.W.2, who is one of the attestor by name K.Venkaiah. Thus, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, plaintiff discharged the initial burden of proof that the documents said to be executed by the defendant are supported for consideration and as such automatically the presumption under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act raised in favour of the plaintiff. 30. Now it has to be seen that whether the defendant rebutted the presumption by adducing evidence. For which the defendant himself entered into the witness box as D.W.1 and in support of his evidence he got exhibited Exs.B.1 to B.3, which are weighment slips in respect of sixteen (16) gold chains, six (6) bracelets and twenty (20) gold rings. But, in
the cross examination, D.W.1 categorically admitted that in Exs.B.1 to B.3 plaintiff neither signed nor his name is mentioned. So the defendant could not able to establish that Exs.B.1 to B.3 are related to the suit transaction, except his own contention that at the time of handing over of 523 grams of gold to prepare ornaments, the plaintiff obtained Exs.A.1 and A.2 as security and the said gold was returned by making sixteen (16) gold chains, six (6) hand bracelets and twenty (20) rings. 31. One more statement made by the defendant during the cross examination is that dharmakata receipts will be handed over to the parties. Now it is the case of the defendant that two copies of dharmakata receipts will be issued, one copy will be given to the parties and another will be retained by him. If that is so, how the defendant procure Exs.B.1 to B.3 and filed into the Court is not explained. 32. Defendant also got examined one V.Malayadri, said to be goldsmith, who is previously worked along with the
defendant, as D.W.2 and he stated in his chief examination that on one day in the evening he along with defendant went to the shop of the plaintiff, where the plaintiff entrusted gold to the defendant to make ornaments of his choice. In that connection, as a security, the plaintiff took two promissory notes of Rs.1,00,000/- each, which is the above value of the gold given to the defendant and no consideration was passed under the said promissory notes. Nothing found on record that he was also present at the time of obtaining promissory notes by the plaintiff from the defendant except his self serving statement. Thereby, no weight can be given to the testimony of D.W.2. 33. One more witness examined by the defendant by name Gandikota Ravichandra as D.W.3. He also spoken in the same lines as that of D.W.2. He is also unable to speak about the details of the gold entrusted by the plaintiff to the defendant. But the fact remains that, in the cross examination of D.W.3 it is elicited that, he does not know the
contents of Exs.A.1 and A.2 nor stated about the cases or suits filed in between the defendant and his brother. So the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 did not convince the Court that their evidence is established that there was no consideration passed under Exs.A.1 and A.2 as pleaded by them. 34. The defendant must be established that there was no consideration under Exs.A.1 and A.2 and their evidence must be proved with all preponderance of probabilities that there was no consideration passed as contended by the defendant. Except denying the case of the plaintiff as well supporting version of the defendant nothing culled out from the testimony of D.Ws.1 to 3 to make believe that the defendant did not receive any consideration under Exs.A.1 and A.2 and he is also unable to establish that Exs.B.1 to B.3 are relating to the gold entrusted by the plaintiff and Exs.A.1 and A.2 are executed only as security as pleaded by him. 35. More so, no evidence is forthcoming to accept that as plaintiff requested the defendant to stand as surety in a
criminal case filed against him and defendant refused for the same, plaintiff filed the false suit by using the said promissory notes. Moreover, the defendant has not taken any steps for getting back the said promissory notes from the plaintiff. Culminating the entire evidence placed before the trial Court, defendant did not discharge his burden rather rebut the evidence of plaintiff. Even the rebuttal evidence placed by the defendant should be cogent, reliable and trustworthy, but such of evidence is not forthcoming from the defendant to make believe that Exs.A.1 and A.2 are not supported by consideration. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that defendant could not able to prove his defence. 36. On the other hand, plaintiff is able to establish that the suit promissory notes covered under Exs.A.1 and A.2 passed by consideration. Moreover, none of the grounds urged by the appellant/defendant to say that his defense is acceptable
than the case of the plaintiff. Thereby, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim. These points are answered accordingly. 37. POINT No.3: In view of the findings on point Nos.1 and 2, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the well-articulated judgment passed by the trial Court, as such this Court is unable to found any merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 38. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the decree and judgment in O.S.No.195 of 2001 dated 08.12.2004 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. There shall be no order as to costs. 39. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 40. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 18.10.2023 Krs
2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
APPEAL SUIT No.149 of 2005
DATE: 18.10.2023
Krs