C SESHA REDDY Vs. T BASAVANA GOUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of the judgment and Decree passed by the Civil Judge at Bellary in O. S. No. 4/1990 and set aside by the District Judge at Bellary in R. A. No. 10/1992 by an order of remand. The appellant is the defendant. The respondent is the plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 4/90 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 56,000/- with costs and interest on the strength of a pronote executed by the defendant. It was the contention of the plaintiff that for meeting domestic expenses a loan of Rs. 56,000/- was borrowed on 12-12-1986 and a pronote to that effect was executed with an undertaking to repay the same with interest at 24% p. m.

(2.) THE defendant in the written statement stoutly denied the execution of the pronote and passing of the consideration. It is said that defendant is the close friend of the plaintiff and he used to assist the plaintiff in a shop as a courtesy and that signatures of the defendant were taken by the plaintiff under some false pretext on stamped blank papers. One such signed stamped blank paper has been converted into a pronote for filing the suit.

(3.) THE trial Court formulated as many as five issues. The issues No. 1 and 2 relate to the execution of the pronote and payment of consideration as alleged by the plaintiff. Issue No. 3 pertains to the liability to pay the interest. Issue Nos. 4 and 5 are the formal issues. The trial Court at the time of judgment framed an additional issue regarding the capacity of the plaintiff to lend the loan and based upon the evidence on record, the trial Court upheld the execution of pronote by the defendant and rejected his defence version. But, on the basis of the extent of property owned by the plaintiff and the defendant came to the conclusion that plaintiff had no capacity to lend the loan and thus dismissed the suit.